Surgeons’ Contributions to Antibiotic Stewardship and Resistance Prevention
Gabriel Birgand, Nicolas Jacquet, Hubert Johanet, Niki Christou, Patrick Castel, Patrice Baillet, Céline Pulcini
TL;DR
This study explores how French surgeons perceive their role in preventing antibiotic resistance through their practices.
Contribution
The study provides new insights into surgeons' perspectives on antibiotic stewardship in France.
Findings
Surgeons recognize their role in antibiotic stewardship.
There is variability in how surgeons perceive their impact on resistance prevention.
Abstract
This survey study evaluates how surgeons in France understand their role in preventing antibiotic resistance.
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
| Question | No./total No. (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Orthopedic | Digestive | Gynecological | |||
|
| ||||||
| In your opinion, does antibiotic resistance threaten the ability to provide quality surgical care in the near future in France? | ||||||
| Agree or fully agree | 114/234 (48.7) | 29/48 (60.4) | 31/62 (53.0) | 44/101 (49.6) | .26 | |
| Disagree or fully disagree | 45/234 (19.2) | 8/48 (16.7) | 5/62 (8.1) | 25/101 (24.7) | .03 | |
| In the past month, did you have issues with antibiotic resistance that complicated the surgical management of your patients? | ||||||
| Never | 134/221 (60.6) | 26/44 (59.1) | 29/60 (48.3) | 69/96 (71.9) | .01 | |
| But it could happen in the next 10 years | 124/129 (96.1) | 25/26 (96.1) | 27/28 (96.1) | 63/66 (95.4) | .93 | |
| Regarding surgical indications | 16/124 (12.9) | 3/25 (12.0) | 4/27 (14.8) | 8/63 (12.7) | .99 | |
| Regarding SAP practices | 57/124 (45.9) | 12/25 (48.0) | 13/27 (48.1) | 29/63 (46.0) | .88 | |
| Regarding antibiotic prescribing to treat infection | 112/124 (90.3) | 23/25 (92.0) | 25/27 (92.6) | 55/63 (87.3) | .60 | |
| Once | 53/221 (23.9) | 9/44 (20.4) | 23/60 (38.3) | 18/96 (18.7) | .02 | |
| Several times | 34/221 (15.4) | 9/44 (20.4) | 8/60 (13.3) | 9/96 (9.4) | .007 | |
| Regarding surgical indications | 4/34 (11.8) | 3/9 (33.3) | 0/8 | 0/9 | .09 | |
| Regarding SAP practices | 7/34 (20.6) | 2/9 (22.2) | 2/8 (25.0) | 2/9 (22.2) | .93 | |
| Regarding antibiotic prescribing to treat infection | 32/34 (94.1) | 9/9 (100) | 7/8 (87.5) | 8/9 (88.9) | .54 | |
| Do you consider yourself sufficiently informed about the phenomenon of antibiotic resistance and its evolution? | ||||||
| Well or very well informed | 73/230 (31.7) | 19/48 (39.6) | 17/61 (27.9) | 23/98 (23.5) | .003 | |
| Poorly or not informed | 77/230 (33.5) | 11/48 (22.9) | 25/61 (40.9) | 36/98 (36.7) | .12 | |
| Do you consider yourself sufficiently informed about the measures to control antibiotic resistance in your surgical practice? | ||||||
| Well or very well informed | 73/231 (31.6) | 20/48 (41.7) | 16/61 (26.2) | 21/99 (21.2) | .003 | |
| Poorly or not informed | 94/231 (40.7) | 14/48 (29.2) | 25/61 (40.9) | 50/99 (50.5) | .02 | |
|
| ||||||
| Are the roles of the different actors clearly defined for the medical management of infections in your department/practice? | ||||||
| Not at all | 17/211 (8.1) | 0/46 | 6/52 (11.5) | 10/92 (10.9) | .10 | |
| A little | 44/211 (20.8) | 3/46 (6.5) | 15/52 (28.8) | 24/92 (26.1) | .01 | |
| Largely | 80/211 (37.9) | 18/46 (39.1) | 18/52 (34.6) | 33/92 (35.9) | .51 | |
| Totally | 70/211 (33.2) | 25/46 (54.3) | 13/52 (25.0) | 25/92 (27.2) | .006 | |
| Do you extend SAP during the postoperative phase to secure patient care? | ||||||
| Never | 107/227 (47.7) | 37/48 (72.1) | 23/59 (37.9) | 36/95 (33.9) | <.001 | |
| Sometimes | 106/224 (47.3) | 10/48 (20.8) | 34/59 (57.6) | 55/95 (57.9) | <.001 | |
| Often | 11/224 (4.9) | 1/48 (2.1) | 2/59 (3.4) | 4/95 (4.2) | .02 | |
| Always | 0/224 | 0/48 | 0/59 | 0/95 | - | |
|
| ||||||
| Selecting SAP at the beginning of the surgery | ||||||
| Never | 27/163 (16.6) | 9/41 (21.9) | 7/41 (17.1) | 11/65 (16.9) | .26 | |
| Sometime | 63/226 (27.9) | 7/48 (14.6) | 19/60 (31.7) | 31/96 (32.3) | .13 | |
| Often | 61/226 (26.9) | 11/48 (22.9) | 17/60 (28.3) | 29/96 (30.2) | .61 | |
| Always | 75/226 (33.2) | 21/48 (43.7) | 17/60 (28.3) | 25/96 (26.0) | .02 | |
| Diagnosis of suspected postoperative infections | ||||||
| Never | 2/218 (0.9) | 1/48 (2.1) | 0/58 | 1/92 (1.1) | .69 | |
| Sometime | 8/226 (3.5) | 0/48 | 2/60 (3.3) | 4/96 (4.2) | .28 | |
| Often | 65/226 (28.8) | 4/48 (8.3) | 18/60 (30.0) | 39/96 (40.6) | .001 | |
| Always | 151/226 (66.8) | 43/48 (89.6) | 40/60 (66.7) | 52/90 (54.2) | <.001 | |
| Antibiotic prescribing to treat postoperative infection | ||||||
| Never | 4/203 (1.9) | 4/37 (10.8) | 1/57 | 0/91 | <.001 | |
| Sometime | 21/224 (9.4) | 10/47 (21.3) | 3/60 (5.0) | 5/96 (5.2) | .008 | |
| Often | 88/224 (39.3) | 12/47 (25.5) | 23/60 (38.3) | 47/96 (48.9) | .04 | |
| Always | 111/224 (49.5) | 21/47 (44.7) | 34/60 (56.7) | 44/96 (45.8) | .44 | |
| Clinical follow-up of patients treated for postoperative infection | ||||||
| Never | 3/213 (1.4) | 2/46 (4.3) | 1/56 (0.2) | 1/93 (1.1) | .26 | |
| Sometime | 12/226 (5.3) | 2/48 (4.2) | 4/60 (6.7) | 3/96 (3.1) | .23 | |
| Often | 70/226 (30.9) | 10/48 (20.8) | 19/60 (31.7) | 36/96 (37.5) | .18 | |
| Always | 141/226 (62.4) | 34/48 (70.8) | 37/60 (61.7) | 56/96 (58.3) | .54 | |
| Characteristic | Total, No./total No. (%) | Agree or fully agree that antibiotic resistance threatens the ability to provide quality surgical care in the near future in France | Well or very well informed about measures to control antibiotic resistance in surgical practice | Never extend surgical antibiotic prophylaxis during the postoperative phase to secure patient care | Often or always involved in antibiotic prescribing to treat postoperative infection | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No./total No. (%) | OR (95% CI) | No./total No. (%) | OR (95% CI) | No./total No. (%) | OR (95% CI) | No./total No. (%) | OR (95% CI) | ||||||
| Gender, female | 73/231 (31.6) | 34/113 (30.1) | 0.87 (0.19-1.52) | .63 | 16/70 (22.9) | 0.53 (0.27-1.01) | .04 | 27/106 (25.5) | 0.57 (0.32-1.02) | .05 | 65/196 (33.2) | 1.98 (0.71-5.56) | .18 |
| Age category | |||||||||||||
| 20-49 y | 55/227 (24.2) | 27/111 (24.3) | 1 [Reference] | NA | 6/68 (8.8) | 1 [Reference] | NA | 33/104 (31.7) | 1 [Reference] | NA | 50/194 (25.8) | 1 [Reference] | NA |
| 50-79 y | 172/227 (75.8) | 84/111 (75.7) | 0.99 (0.54-1.82) | .97 | 62/68 (91.2) | 4.73 (1.86-12.03) | <.001 | 71/104 (68.3) | 0.46 (0.24-0.88) | .01 | 144/194 (74.2) | 0.43 (0.12-1.52) | .18 |
| Type of facility for primary work sector | |||||||||||||
| Public | 120/233 (51.5) | 57/113 (50.4) | 1 [Reference] | NA | 38/72 (52.8) | 1 [Reference] | NA | 52/107 (48.6) | 1 [Reference] | NA | 103/199 (51.8) | 1 [Reference] | NA |
| Private | 113/233 (48.5) | 56/113 (49.6) | 1.08 (0.64-1.81) | .75 | 34/72 (47.2) | 0.94 (0.64-1.64) | .83 | 55/107 (51.4) | 1.27 (0.75-2.16) | .36 | 96/199 (48.2) | 0.73 (0.31-1.69) | .46 |
| Experience after the internship | |||||||||||||
| 0-20 y | 102/232 (44.0) | 51/113 (45.1) | 1 [Reference] | NA | 19/71 (26.8) | 1 [Reference] | NA | 46/105 (43.8) | 1 [Reference] | NA | 90/198 (45.5) | 1 [Reference] | NA |
| >20 y | 130/232 (56.0) | 62/113 (54.9) | 0.91 (0.54-1.53) | .73 | 52/71 (73.2) | 3.03 (1.61-5.69) | <.001 | 59/105 (56.2) | 0.99 (0.58-1.69) | .97 | 108/198 (54.5) | 0.49 (0.19-1.25) | .13 |
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAntibiotic Use and Resistance · Surgical site infection prevention · Innovations in Medical Education
Introduction
The risk of postoperative infections is mitigated through a series of preventive and curative measures.^1^ While the capacity of health care systems to deliver safe surgery relies on the availability of effective antibiotics, the inappropriate use of these drugs—both for prophylaxis and therapy—remains a significant concern, as it contributes to the emergence and spread of antibiotic resistance (ABR), ultimately threatening progress in surgical care.^2,3^ Although lack of clarity regarding the ownership of the antibiotic prescription has been previously noted, the specific role of surgeons in prescribing remains underexplored.^4^ We conducted an nationwide, exploratory, anonymous, self-administered online questionnaire to evaluate the perceptions, roles, and responsibilities of surgeons regarding ABR.
Methods
The questionnaire for this survey study was disseminated between May 13 and October 10, 2024, through the French National Academy of Surgery and national professional societies to surgeons working in secondary and tertiary care. Data were gathered from respondents about their perception of the impact of ABR in surgery in general and in routine practice, roles and responsibilities in prescribing and administrating surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP), and involvement in the diagnosis and treatment of postoperative infections (eAppendix in Supplement 1). Univariable analyses were performed using a 2-tailed Fisher exact test or Wilcoxon test. Statistical analyses were performed with Stata version 18 (StataCorp), with P < .05 considered statistically significant. We obtained ethical review from the French Society of Infectious Diseases to conduct this study. All participants received an information letter, and consent was obtained before their interviews. The reporting adheres to AAPOR Best Practices for Survey Research.
Results
The survey was completed by 234 surgeons (32.2% female and 55.2% with >20 years’ experience), with 48 (20.5%) orthopedic surgeons , 62 (26.5%) digestive surgeons, 101 (43.2%) gynecological surgeons, and the remaining from other surgical specialties. Regarding the perception of ABR in surgery, 114 of 234 respondents (48.7%) agreed that ABR would threaten the ability to provide quality surgical care in the near future in France (Table 1). Among 221 respondents, 53 (23.9%) encountered one and 34 (15.4%) several issues with ABR during the month prior to the survey that complicated the surgical management of their patients. Among 129 surgeons not affected by ABR, 124 (96.1%) thought this could be the case in the coming 10 years, first for infection treatment (112 [90.3%]) and second for SAP (57 [45.9%]).
The role of the different actors in the medical management of infections in their surgical department was considered clearly and fully defined by 70 of 211 respondents (33.2%), with a difference between orthopedic and other specialties (orthopedic: 25 of 46 [54.3%]; digestive: 13 of 52 [25.0%]; gynecological: 25 of 92 [27.2%]). The selection of SAP at the beginning of the surgery always involved surgeons in 33.2% of cases (75 of 226) or often in 26.9% (61 of 226). Almost half of surgeons (106 of 224 [47.3%]) declared sometimes and 11 (4.9%) often extending SAP during the postoperative phase to secure patient care. This practice was more commonly associated with younger male surgeons (Table 2). Most (151 of 226 [66.8%]) were systematically involved in the diagnosis of suspected postoperative infections, and 111 (49.5%) in the antibiotic prescribing process to treat them. Senior surgeons were involved in first-line treatment of infections (69.0% a lot or exclusively) followed by the infectious diseases team (63.2%), junior surgeons (43.7%), and anesthesiologists (35.3%). This pattern was more commonly observed among younger female surgeons working in public facilities (Table 2).
Discussion
This survey found that surgeons were aware of the consequences of ABR on the effectiveness of antibiotics for treatment. Paradoxically, half of them extended the duration of SAP postoperatively. This exploratory survey provides some insights to develop interventions to improve surgeons’ knowledge of ABR and clarify roles and optimize infection management in surgical patients.^5^ Particular attention should be paid to surgical specialties generating a large burden of infections requiring antibiotic use.^6^ The study’s findings are limited by the restriction to surgeons working in France, impairing the generalizability; the self-reported design; and not addressing prescribing behaviors or outcomes.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1World Health Organisation. Global guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infection (SSI). Accessed July 19, 2023. https://www.who.int/teams/integrated-health-services/infection-prevention-control/surgical-site-infection
- 2Charani E, de Barra E, Rawson TM, . Antibiotic prescribing in general medical and surgical specialties: a prospective cohort study. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2019;8(1):151. doi:10.1186/s 13756-019-0603-631528337 PMC 6743118 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 3Davies SC, Fowler T, Watson J, Livermore DM, Walker D. Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer: infection and the rise of antimicrobial resistance. Lancet. 2013;381(9878):1606-1609. doi:10.1016/S 0140-6736(13)60604-223489756 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 4Singh S, Mendelson M, Surendran S, . Investigating infection management and antimicrobial stewardship in surgery: a qualitative study from India and South Africa. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021;27(10):1455-1464. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2020.12.01333422658 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 5Charani E, Tarrant C, Moorthy K, Sevdalis N, Brennan L, Holmes AH. Understanding antibiotic decision making in surgery—a qualitative analysis. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017;23(10):752-760. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2017.03.01328341492 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 6Troughton R, Birgand G, Johnson AP, . Mapping national surveillance of surgical site infections in England: needs and priorities. J Hosp Infect. 2018;100(4):378-385. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2018.06.00629906490 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗