Antimicrobial stewardship in Ireland, with a focus on long term care facilities

Background: Antimicrobial resistance is a major public health concern, and its increasing incidence in the Long Term Care Facility (LTCF) setting warrants attention (1). The prescribing of antimicrobials in this setting is often inappropriate and higher in Ireland than the European average (2). The aim of the study was to generate an evidence base for the factors influencing antimicrobial prescribing in LTCFs and to investigate Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) strategies for LTCFs. Methods: An initial qualitative study was conducted to determine the factors influencing antimicrobial prescribing in Irish LTCFs. This allowed for the informed implementation of an AMS feasibility study in LTCFs in the greater Cork region. Hospital AMS was also investigated by means of a national survey. A study of LTCF urine sample antimicrobial resistance rates was conducted in order to collate information for incorporation into future LTCF AMS initiatives. Results: The qualitative interviews determined that there are a multitude of factors, unique to the LTCF setting, which influence antimicrobial prescribing. There was a positive response from the doctors and nurses involved in the feasibility study as they welcomed the opportunity to engage with AMS and audit and feedback activities. While the results did not indicate a significant change in antimicrobial prescribing over the study period, important trends and patterns of use were detected. The antimicrobial susceptibility of LTCF urine samples compared to GPs samples found that there was a higher level of antimicrobial resistance in LTCFs. Conclusion: This study has made an important contribution to the development of AMS in LTCFs. The complexity of care and healthcare organisation, and the factors unique to LTCFs must be borne in mind when developing quality improvement strategies.

Effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions to prevent falls in older people: a systematic overview. The SENATOR Project ONTOP Series

Background: Falls are common events in older people, which cause considerable morbidity and mortality. Non-pharmacological interventions are an important approach to prevent falls. There are a large number of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological interventions, whose evidence needs to be synthesized in order to facilitate evidence-based clinical decision making. Objectives: To systematically examine reviews and meta-analyses that evaluated non-pharmacological interventions to prevent falls in older adults in the community, care facilities and hospitals. Methods: We searched the electronic databases Pubmed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDRO and TRIP from January 2009 to March 2015, for systematic reviews that included at least one comparative study, evaluating any non-pharmacological intervention, to prevent falls amongst older adults. The quality of the reviews was assessed using AMSTAR and ProFaNE taxonomy was used to organize the interventions. Results: Fifty-nine systematic reviews were identified which consisted of single, multiple and multi-factorial non-pharmacological interventions to prevent falls in older people. The most frequent ProFaNE defined interventions were exercises either alone or combined with other interventions, followed by environment/assistive technology interventions comprising environmental modifications, assistive and protective aids, staff education and vision assessment/correction. Knowledge was the third principle class of interventions as patient education. Exercise and multifactorial interventions were the most effective treatments to reduce falls in older adults, although not all types of exercise were equally effective in all subjects and in all settings. Effective exercise programs combined balance and strength training. Reviews with a higher AMSTAR score were more likely to contain more primary studies, to be updated and to perform meta-analysis. Conclusions: The aim of this overview of reviews of non-pharmacological interventions to prevent falls in older people in different settings, is to support clinicians and other healthcare workers with clinical decision-making by providing a comprehensive perspective of findings.

Job control and ambulatory blood pressure

Objective: The effect of work on blood pressure (BP) in a general population with appropriate adjustment for confounders is not well defined. High job control has been found to be associated with lower BP and with nocturnal BP dipping. However, with older workers this may be compromised and has not been studied extensively. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out on a primary care-based sample (N=2047) aged 50–69 years. Data were collected on sociodemographic factors, medication, clinic, and ambulatory blood pressure. Job control was measured using two scales from the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) (possibility for development and influence at work). Nocturnal systolic BP (SBP) dipping was the reduction in SBP from day- to night-time using ambulatory SBP readings. Results: In general, BP increased with age, male gender, and higher body mass index. Workers with high influence at work and high possibility for development were more likely to have high asleep SBP [odds ratio (OR) 2.13, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.05–4.34, P=0.04], (OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.11–4.66, P=0.03) respectively. Influence at work and awake BP were inversely associated: awake SBP (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.35–4.41, P<0.01), awake DBP (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.24–4.72, P=0.01). No association was seen between job control and nocturnal SBP dipping. Conclusion: Older workers with high job control may be more at risk of cardiovascular disease resulting from high day- and night-time BP with no evidence of nocturnal dipping.

Child care proceedings in non-specialist courts: the experience in Ireland

It is widely accepted that court proceedings concerning child protection are a particularly sensitive type of court proceedings that warrant a different approach to other types of proceedings. Consequently, the use of specialized family or children’s judges or courts is commonplace across Europe and in common law jurisdictions. By contrast, in Ireland, proceedings under the Child Care Act 1991 are heard in the general courts system by judges who mostly do not specialize in child or family law. In principle, the Act itself and the associated case law accept that the vulnerability of the parties and the sensitivity of the issues involved are such that they need to be singled out for a different approach to other court proceedings. However, it is questionable whether this aspiration has been realized in a system where child care proceedings are mostly heard in a general District Court, using the same judges and the same physical facilities used for proceedings such as minor crime and traffic offences. This article draws on the first major qualitative analysis of professional perspectives on child care proceedings in the Irish District Court. It examines evidence from judges, lawyers, social workers, and guardians ad litem and asks whether non-specialist courts are an appropriate venue for proceedings on an issue as complex and sensitive as child protection, or whether the establishment of specialist family courts with dedicated staff and facilities provides a better solution.