Improvisation versus guideline concordance in surgical antibiotic prophylaxis: a qualitative study

Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) is a common area of antimicrobial misuse. The aim of this study was to explore the social dynamics that influence the use of SAP.

20 surgeons and anaesthetists from a tertiary referral hospital in Australia participated in semi-structured interviews focusing on experiences and perspectives on SAP prescribing. Interview data were analysed using the framework approach.

Systematic analysis of the participants’ account of the social factors influencing SAP revealed four themes. First, antibiotic prophylaxis is treated as a low priority with the competing demands of the operating theatre environment. Second, whilst guidelines have increased in prominence in recent years, there exists a lack of confidence in their ability to protect the surgeon from responsibility for infectious complications (thus driving SAP over-prescribing). Third, non-concordance prolonged duration of SAP is perceived to be driven by benevolence for the individual patient. Finally, improvisation with novel SAP strategies is reported as ubiquitous, and acknowledged to confer a sense of reassurance to the surgeon despite potential non-concordance with guidelines or clinical efficacy.

Surgical-specific concerns have thus far not been meaningfully integrated into antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes, including important dynamics of confidence, trust and mitigating fear of adverse infective events. Surgeons require specific forms of AMS support to enact optimisation, including support for strong collaborative ownership of the surgical risk of infection, and intra-specialty (within surgical specialties) and inter-specialty (between surgery, anaesthetics and infectious diseases) intervention strategies to establish endorsement of and address barriers to guideline implementation.