{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021693121693121695, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0010582010582010583, 'mean_word_length': 5.705673758865248, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A qualitative study on factors influencing the implementation of a Clostridium difficile risk prediction tool in the Scottish secondary care setting

Introduction: Clostridium difficile is the leading cause of hospital-acquired diarrhoea, driven mainly by the consumption of 4C antibiotics (co-amoxiclav, clindamycin, cephalosporins and ciprofloxacin). In order to support secondary care clinicians in prescribing antibiotics, an algorithm helping to identify patients at high risk of contracting Clostridium difficile infections (CDI) has been created. The aim of this study was to identify factors that are influencing the implementation of a risk predictive tool in secondary care, focusing on podiatrist as potential users. Methods: Four podiatrists from NHS Fife were interviewed to gather their perception of CDI, the antibiotic prescription process, and the usefulness of a CDI tool in supporting their antibiotic prescribing decisions. The interviews were thematically analysed in NVivo using the consolidated framework for implementation research. Result: A facilitator emerged during the interviews suggested that, although podiatrists tend to not prescribe 4C antibiotics, they comprehend the risks involved with CDI. Therefore, for patient’s safety netting purposes, the use of the CDI tool during consultations was considered useful. However, a barrier emerged suggested that, although implementing the tool into their electronic system was deemed favourable, this isn't feasible, due to patient data in secondary care being allocated in different systems. Therefore, standalone app or website platforms were perceived as more appropriate to develop the CDI tool. Conclusion: In general it was understood that podiatrists are supportive in having a CDI tool, however, due to the impossibility of implementation of the tool into their system, a website or app will be developed.