SummaryBackgroundAntibiotic use in human medicine, veterinary medicine, and agriculture has been linked to the rise of antibiotic resistance globally. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarise the effect that interventions to reduce antibiotic use in food-producing animals have on the presence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in animals and in humans.MethodsOn July 14, 2016, we searched electronic databases (Agricola, AGRIS, BIOSIS Previews, CAB Abstracts, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Index Medicus, ProQuest Dissertations, Science Citation Index) and the grey literature. The search was updated on Jan 27, 2017. Inclusion criteria were original studies that reported on interventions to reduce antibiotic use in food-producing animals and compared presence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria between intervention and comparator groups in animals or in human beings. We extracted data from included studies and did meta-analyses using random effects models. The main outcome assessed was the risk difference in the proportion of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.FindingsA total of 181 studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, 179 (99%) described antibiotic resistance outcomes in animals, and 81 (45%) of these studies were included in the meta-analysis. 21 studies described antibiotic resistance outcomes in humans, and 13 (62%) of these studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled absolute risk reduction of the prevalence of antibiotic resistance in animals with interventions that restricted antibiotic use commonly ranged between 10 and 15% (total range 0–39), depending on the antibiotic class, sample type, and bacteria under assessment. Similarly, in the human studies, the pooled prevalence of antibiotic resistance reported was 24% lower in the intervention groups compared with control groups, with a stronger association seen for humans with direct contact with food-producing animals.InterpretationInterventions that restrict antibiotic use in food-producing animals are associated with a reduction in the presence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in these animals. A smaller body of evidence suggests a similar association in the studied human populations, particularly those with direct exposure to food-producing animals. The implications for the general human population are less clear, given the low number of studies. The overall findings have directly informed the development of WHO guidelines on the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals.FundingWorld Health Organization.

IMPORTANCE Seriously ill hospitalized patients have identified communication and decision making about goals of care as high priorities for quality improvement in end-of-life care. Interventions to improve care are more likely to succeed if tailored to existing barriers.OBJECTIVE To determine, from the perspective of hospital-based clinicians, (1) barriers impeding communication and decision making about goals of care with seriously ill hospitalized patients and their families and (2) their own willingness and the acceptability for other clinicians to engage in this process. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSMulticenter survey of medical teaching units of nurses, internal medicine residents, and staff physicians from participating units at 13 university-based hospitals from 5 Canadian provinces. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESImportance of 21 barriers to goals of care discussions rated on a 7-point scale (1 = extremely unimportant; 7 = extremely important). RESULTS Between September 2012 and March 2013, questionnaires were returned by 1256 of 1617 eligible clinicians, for an overall response rate of 77.7% (512 of 646 nurses [79.3%], 484 of 634 residents [76.3%], 260 of 337 staff physicians [77.2%]). The following family member-related and patient-related factors were consistently identified by all 3 clinician groups as the most important barriers to goals of care discussions: family members' or patients' difficulty accepting a poor prognosis (mean [SD] score, 5.8 [1.2] and 5.6 [1.3], respectively), family members' or patients' difficulty understanding the limitations and complications of life-sustaining treatments (5.8 [1.2] for both groups), disagreement among family members about goals of care (5.8 [1.2]), and patients' incapacity to make goals of care decisions (5.6 [1.2]). Clinicians perceived their own skills and system factors as less important barriers. Participants viewed it as acceptable for all clinician groups to engage in goals of care discussions-including a role for advance practice nurses, nurses, and social workers to initiate goals of care discussions and be a decision coach.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Hospital-based clinicians perceive family member-related and patient-related factors as the most important barriers to goals of care discussions. All health care professionals were viewed as playing important roles in addressing goals of care. These findings can inform the design of future interventions to improve communication and decision making about goals of care.

Background Advance care planning (acp) is an important process in health care today. How to prospectively identify

BackgroundCommunication gaps impact the quality of patient care. Previous research has focused on communication barriers rather than seeking solutions. Our aim was to identify strategies for effective communication and decision-making about goals of care for medical interventions in serious illness, from the perspectives of hospital-based healthcare providers.MethodsA cross-sectional survey composed of closed- and open-ended questions about goals of care communication and decision-making was administered to healthcare providers in 13 centres in six Canadian provinces. We analyzed a portion of the open-ended survey questions, specifically (1) suggestions for overcoming barriers encountered in discussing goals of care, and (2) currently effective practices. Thematic content analysis was used to analyze responses to the open-ended questions.ResultsOf the 1,256 respondents to the larger survey, 468 responded to the open-ended questions (37 %), including 272 of 512 nurses (53 %), 153 of 484 internal medicine trainees (32 %), and 43 of 260 attending physicians (17 %). Responses to each of the two questions were similar, generating a common set of themes and subthemes. Effective strategies and ideas for improving communication and decision-making about goals of care clustered under five themes: patient and family factors, communication between healthcare providers and patients, interprofessional collaboration, education, and resources. Subthemes highlighted core elements of shared decision-making.ConclusionsTranslating our findings into multifaceted interventions that consider patient and family factors, address knowledge gaps, optimize resource utilization, and facilitate communication and collaboration between patients, families and healthcare providers may improve communication and decision-making about goals of care.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12904-015-0035-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

This study demonstrates that podcasts are an acceptable learning resource for medical students engaged in a surgery clerkship, and can be integrated into existing study habits. We believe that podcasting can help us cater to busy students with a range of learning styles. We have also shown that a free online resource developed by one school can reach a global audience many times larger than its intended target: to date, the 'Surgery 101' podcast series has been downloaded more than 160,000 times worldwide.

BackgroundWe have previously reported, in a systematic review of 181 studies, that restriction of antibiotic use in food-producing animals is associated with a reduction in antibiotic-resistant bacterial isolates. While informative, that report did not concretely specify whether different types of restriction are associated with differential effectiveness in reducing resistance. We undertook a sub-analysis of the systematic review to address this question.MethodsWe created a classification scheme of different approaches to antibiotic restriction: (1) complete restriction; (2) single antibiotic-class restriction; (3) single antibiotic restriction; (4) all non-therapeutic use restriction; (5) growth promoter and prophylaxis restriction; (6) growth promoter restriction and (7) other/undetermined. All studies in the original systematic review that were amenable to meta-analysis were included into this substudy and coded by intervention type. Meta-analyses were conducted using random effects models, stratified by intervention type.ResultsA total of 127 studies were included. The most frequently studied intervention type was complete restriction (n=51), followed by restriction of non-therapeutic (n=33) and growth promoter (n=19) indications. None examined growth promoter and prophylaxis restrictions together. Three and seven studies examined single antibiotic-class and single antibiotic restrictions, respectively; these two intervention types were not significantly associated with reductions in antibiotic resistance. Though complete restrictions were associated with a 15% reduction in antibiotic resistance, less prohibitive approaches also demonstrated reduction in antibiotic resistance of 9%–30%.ConclusionBroad interventions that restrict global antibiotic use appear to be more effective in reducing antibiotic resistance compared with restrictions that narrowly target one specific antibiotic or antibiotic class. Importantly, interventions that allow for therapeutic antibiotic use appear similarly effective compared with those that restrict all uses of antibiotics, suggesting that complete bans are not necessary. These findings directly inform the creation of specific policies to restrict antibiotic use in food-producing animals.

Background There is ongoing debate regarding potential associations between restrictions of antimicrobial use and prevalence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in bacteria. Objectives To summarize the effects of interventions reducing antimicrobial use in food-producing animals on the prevalence of AMR genes (ARGs) in bacteria from animals and humans. Methods We published a full systematic review of restrictions of antimicrobials in food-producing animals and their associations with AMR in bacteria. Herein, we focus on studies reporting on the association between restricted antimicrobial use and prevalence of ARGs. We used multilevel mixed-effects models and a semi-quantitative approach based on forest plots to summarize findings from studies. Results A positive effect of intervention [reduction in prevalence or number of ARGs in group(s) with restricted antimicrobial use] was reported from 29 studies for at least one ARG. We detected significant associations between a ban on avoparcin and diminished presence of the vanA gene in samples from animals and humans, whereas for the mecA gene, studies agreed on a positive effect of intervention in samples only from animals. Comparisons involving mcr-1, blaCTX-M, aadA2, vat(E), sul2, dfrA5, dfrA13, tet(E) and tet(P) indicated a reduced prevalence of genes in intervention groups. Conversely, no effects were detected for β-lactamases other than blaCTX-M and the remaining tet genes. Conclusions The available body of scientific evidence supported that restricted use of antimicrobials in food animals was associated with an either lower or equal presence of ARGs in bacteria, with effects dependent on ARG, host species and restricted drug.

Antimicrobial resistance is considered one of the greatest threats to global and public health today. The World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the World Organisation for Animal Health, known as the Tripartite Collaboration, have called for urgent action. We have previously published a systematic review of 181 studies, demonstrating that interventions that restrict antibiotic use in food-producing animals are associated with a reduction in antibiotic resistant bacterial isolates in both animals and humans. What remains unknown, however, are whether (and what) unintended consequences may arise from such interventions. We therefore undertook a sub-analysis of the original review to address this research question. A total of 47 studies described potential consequences of antibiotic restrictions. There were no consistent trends to suggest clear harm. There may be increased bacterial contamination of food products, the clinical significance of which remains unclear. There is a need for rigorous evaluation of the unintended consequences of antibiotic restrictions in human health, food availability, and economics, given their possible widespread implications.