Environment Network 2025: Investigating Environmental Outbreaks

It’s the most wonderful time of the year! It’s time for the annual Environment Network meeting, where we get together to talk all things environmental microbiology; sharing new research and experience to improve practice. And your guide for the conference this year, live blogging the morning session, is the token immunologist in the group, Dr Claire Walker.

What is the environment network?

Before we get onto todays’ content, a little introduction to what the Environment Network is.

The Environment Network works to support people in clinical, engineering and scientific roles who are interested in environmental infection prevention and control (IPC) and/or the built environment

Do you want to know more about what to do with your water screening and air sampling results?  Are you keen to understand the evidence behind equipment cleaning and the role of the environment in healthcare associated infection?

Then welcome to the Environment Network! 

This is a network for people in clinical/scientific/engineering roles within the NHS and other associated organisations who are interested in the role of environmental infection prevention and control in preventing infection. 

The aim of the network is to support infection prevention and control professionals involved in commissioning, environmental audit, water, air and surface testing within their Trusts.  By working together we can share best practice between Trusts; as well as circulating the latest evidence and discussing personal experiences. 

What are the aims of the network?

  • To support the development of member networks
  • To provide events where shared learning can be supported
  • To permit sharing of experiences and best practice to improve clinical interventions
  • To support and share research in order to achieve improvements in evidence based practice

What is our remit?

  • Environmental testing and monitoring within healthcare environments
  • Environmental audit and risk assessment
  • Surface decontamination
  • Ventilation within healthcare environments
  • Water management within healthcare environments
  • Environmental outbreak monitoring and control

Check out the website for more details: https://environment-network.com/

On to today. First up we have Gavin Wood, an authorising engineer for water who acts as an independent advisor to Trusts. He is covering the fascinating topic of water associate outbreaks and what we can ask of our water safety groups during an outbreak. There should always be a policy which covers how to organise the estates teams and the water safety groups – covering who is responsible for each area during the outbreak. Regular outbreaks are caused by organisms like Legionella and Pseudomonas, but might include non-tuberculosis causing mycobacteria. Detection of these organisms during routine screening is reported to the water safety group to assess potential risk. Most pathogens that we look at will grow within a certain temperature range, so maintaining cold water as cold, and hot water as hot is essential. What we really don’t want is warm water stagnating in the system as the pathogens can thrive in it. On top of this, we need chemical control of organisms – mostly silver and copper ion systems. Stagnant areas of warm water are pockets where the pathogens might thrive so flushing the system and chemical controls are key in maintaining a healthy water supply in hospitals. Controls that are effective for indicator organisms that we routinely test for, like legionella, tend to be effective for any other outbreak organisms. In an outbreak situation the first port of call is the Legionella risk assessment which considers the efficacy of temperature and chemical control. After this, in line with guidance, all trusts should refer to their Water Safety Plan which is contains the detail on actions to take when results are outside the expected limits. Most of the time the authorised engineer already has the answers because the system is repeatedly routinely tested.

Like any system in a hospital, it is vital that the risk assessment and training is up to date. As Gavin says if we haven’t covered everything in the risk assessment, and if the water policy hasn’t been recently reviewed then the whole system is vulnerable. External audit by authorise engineers ensures the system remains optimal. Investigation of an outbreak focuses on the patient pathway – where has the visitor or patient been on their journey through the hospital. This process finds the clues to identify the source of the environmental outbreak. Surprisingly one of the main pieces of evidence comes from review of training and competence records, is everyone appropriately trained and acting in accordance with policy. If in doubt, going an witnessing monitoring and maintenance tasks can provide essential information in a high pressure outbreak situation. Gavin drives home how important practice is in this – we need this information as much on a random rainy Tuesday as much as we need it during a Legionella outbreak!

Our next talk comes from Karren Staniforth from UKHSA. She is a clinical scientist and UKHSA IPC specialist adviser, and is talking to us about the pros and cons of different outbreak investigation techniques. Karren invites us to imagine painting a busy ward in different colour 10cm squares, every single surface with a cotton tip swab. Imagine how long that could take and just how many squares you would end up with! Even if you took 200 samples, how many squares have you failed to test? Usually we can only take 20-40 samples…. So even if they all come back negative, it doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t an organism there – its just that the sampling didn’t find it. The chances of going in and finding nothing is quite high, but if you put a patient in that room for a week, they will almost certainly find that organism (not that we recommend that as a testing method!).

Karren reminds us that reading environmental plates is quite an art and different from clinical samples, it’s a different skill and guidance from experts is essential. Clinical diagnostic laboratories aren’t accredited to process environmental samples and the staff aren’t trained to process and analyse this work. Commercial companies can come and do testing for you, and they are extremely good at routine work. Bespoke work is harder to commission, and that’s where knowing the network can really help! So if you have an outbreak of something unusual, it’s hard to find the information on what level of environmental organisms – like aspergillus – are ok, and what constitutes a danger to patients.

The questions becomes, what type of samples do we want to take and why? We need to understand basal levels of indicator organisms to work out when to act. Building on what Gavin has shared this morning, you need to look – really look- at what is happening in your environment. Karren reflects on how useful an audit can be but we don’t go into an outbreak with the information already in front of you, so your audit probably won’t ask exactly the right questions. Epidemiology provides the answers – which organisms and then which patients are affected, where and when? Identifying common exposures can be easy when infections match case distribution e.g. sequential patients with the same infection in the same room. However some are less obvious like laundry delivered to multiple sites causing infection clusters which are miles apart or commercial products that might only impact high risk patients in very low numbers, but at multiple sites across countries. This can be exceptionally difficult to trace. Though remember not every exposure results in colonisation and infection, and even if exposure is universal some patient groups are more likely to develop infections than others.

Knowing what kind of sample to take is essential, especially when sample numbers are limited. Negative results can be just as useful as positive results – and identifying the source of the outbreak is as much detective work as it is learning to read plates! Karren reminds us – ‘You don’t always need sampling, somethings are just WRONG!’.

To close the first session, we have Louise Clarke who knows everything there is to know about proper ventilation. Ventilation is essential the movement of air within a system. The law tells us we must provide ventilation under the Healthy and Safety at Work Act, and building regulations set a minimum standard for ventilation. The main reason for good ventilation is to have a safe and comfortable environment; to remove odours, to control temperature and importantly to protect from harmful organisms and toxic substances. We have natural ventilation (like opening a window!), mechanical ventilation which pushes air around the building and a mixed mode – a combination of the two. The preferred method for ventilating a hospital remains natural ventilation, something which really shocked the group. It might work well on a windy day but it certainly doesn’t cover all areas and some times of year, like winter, it’s really no good at all.

Like Lou says, simple is best. When we talk about ventilation, we need to ask what is the issue we are looking at? Human elements are usually a key element to understanding problems in ventilation – you need to think about when the issue arose and who was involved? Often there is a significant time lag between the problem starting and it’s detection in real time. You can be left scrabbling around for details long after the issue began. Lou walked us through the potential information sources to considering during an outbreak, including design records. Which tend to be a little less useful than you would imagine, considering they often tell you the purpose the room was designed for 30 years ago – perhaps not so relevant now! Echoing the sentiments of Karren earlier, one of the most important things you can do is go physically and take a look – not an audit, just turn up and use all your senses!

To kick off the session after a much needed cup of tea (Earl Grey, hot!) we have Dr Mariyam Mirfenderesky who is talking about the challenges of managing fungal outbreaks. Candidozyma auris (note the new name!) is probably one of the most difficult outbreak causing organism to manage. To help with this a Clinical Expert Reference Group was established in March 2025. Candida species are the dominating fungal pathogens of invasive fungal disease and account for >85% of fungaemia in Europe and the United States. Candidozyma auris was first identified in 2009 from a Japanese patient with ear discharge, and is a critical WHO priority fungal pathogen. It is fluconazole resistant and has a propensity to cause healthcare associated infection outbreaks. There are 6 independent clades, with clade 1 dominating in England. Mariyam walked us through the identification of the first neonatal case of C.auris from an eye swab – it was found in two infants, five weeks apart with no direct contact between the children. Fortunately both were colonisation with the fungus only. She then discussed the safety measures that should be in place to manage this difficult pathogen – particularly focusing on why the current cleaning protocols are insufficient to manage this threat. Her final points considered how to act when you detect C.auris – you must be decisive and act!

If you’d like to know more about C. auris, check out this blog post from earlier this year:

Next we have Dr John Hartley who is talking to us about investigating environmental surface mediated outbreaks – what you can’t see may still hurt you. Using the classic movie ‘the fiend without a face’ as a metaphor for IPC, John introduced the idea of modes of transmission between individuals. It feels like a simple problem, its just cleaning and handwashing after all! But we see there is a complex person-organism-environment dynamic system, and as John says, there is always a well known solution to every human problem – neat, plausible and wrong! John highlights the importance of continual surveillance and knowing ‘where the fiend is’. The controls are based on a four pronged approach – clean, replace, destroy or rebuild.

By way of a case study, John told us about his experience of managing adenovirus outbreaks in a paediatric BMT ward. This is a very common virus causing 5-10% of febrile illness in early childhood. Almost everyone has had it, and it can establish latency which can reactivate during BMT. More often it causes severe morbidity and mortality in these patients who can develop hepatitis. What you can’t tell is if the child caught adenovirus from the environment or if it has reactivated post latency. However, whole genome sequencing (WGS) can resolve 1-3 SNPs across genomes – its not like looking for a needle in a haystack, its rather like looking for a needle in the whole of Texas. But WGS can be used to confirm or refute cross infection events.

Of course the next question is, what can be done? Visual assessment is not a reliable indicator of surface cleanliness, John described the varied methods which can be used to detect adenovirus. Then we need to develop the right tools to manage it – including development of environmental PCR as a measure of cleaning efficacy by GirlyMicro herself! Finishing on a Dr Who reference to delight a crowd of scientists is always a win – even if it is comparing adenovirus to the scariest episode, the weeping angels! Of course, when monitoring adenovirus, the most important advice is ‘Don’t Blink’.

To close the morning session we have Dr Sam Watkin discussing research tools to help predict the future of outbreaks. Sam began acknowledging the current challenges facing preventing transmission of environmental organisms. In his PhD he aimed to identify how microbes disseminate through the clinical space, if the starting contamination site determined how is was disseminated and if the usage of space influenced microbial transmission risk. IPC is often retrospective to the aim was to develop research tools to allow the development of prospective knowledge. Sam used cauliflower mosaic virus DNA markers as a surrogate for pathogens, and followed its movement around two different units. It was shocking to see how far this benign organism could spread in such a short time.

I think if we take away anything this morning it’s that nobody likes the new name for C.auris, and death, death to recirculating air conditioning units!

The morning was followed in the afternoon by a series of case discussions in order to help implement the learning from the morning, help everyone get to know each other, and support the sharing of peer to peer learning. The case discussions this year included:

  • Case discussion one (Facilitated by Dr John Hartley):
    • Seek and remove: approaches to source control for environmental surface mediated outbreaks
  • Case discussion two (Facilitated by Professor Elaine Cloutman-Green):
    • How to implement a multi-disciplinary approach to investigation of water borne outbreaks
  • Case discussion three (Facilitated by Louise Clarke):
    • Interpretation of ventilation data and applying it to ventilation risk assessments
  • Case discussion four (Facilitated by Dr Sam Watkin):
    • Determining the role of equipment in outbreaks: how do you investigate?
  • Case discussion five (Facilitated by Karren Staniforth):
    • Introducing new cleaning process: what should you consider?
  • Case discussion six (Facilitated by Dr Claire Walker):
    • Choosing new equipment and furnishings: what questions should you ask?

It was truly inspiring to hear the buzz in the room that all of the discussion created. Thank you to Mr Girlymicro (Jon Cloutman-Green) for being in charge of photography, and to all of our speakers and facilitators for making the day happen. Also, massive shout out to Ant De Souza for pulling the day together, Angela McGee for making sure we all turned up to the right place at the right time, Mummy Girlymicro for running the reception desk, and to Richard Axell for supporting all of the tech on the day.

Now it is all over, the only thing to do is to tap our feet until we all get to meet again in 2026, although the presentations and discussion sheets should go up some time during 2025. Until then however, if you want to know more either head to the Environment Network website to look at info from previous years, or read some of the other blog posts linked to environmental IPC down below.

All opinions in this blog are my own

Going Macro on Micro: Honouring Dr Simon Doherty and collecting all the episode links in one place

This post was supposed to be something quite different. It was supposed to be about One Heath and a great podcast created by Beckman Coulter I was involved with in 2024, alongside some really inspiring people. In some ways it still is that, but because of the cruel reality of life it is actually also something quite different.

”Going Macro on Micro” is a podcast that Dr Simon Doherty and I were involved with that explores emerging themes and pressing issues in the world of microbiology. As the host, Dr Lough, says the podcast covers everything from investigating the global challenges of infection control to unveiling the future of diagnostic technologies.

The week the final episode of the podcast dropped, before Christmas, I got some pretty devastating news. Sadly Simon has passed away. Now, I didn’t know Simon well. We’d emailed since doing the podcase together and I kept an eye on the awards he received and his really interesting posts. In this limited contact though, he still managed to inspire. Recording the series with him was such a privilege. He was kind, open and funny. More than that he was so knowledgeable and I came away feeling like I’d learnt so much. I am so sad that I won’t be able to build on the foundation we laid to continue to learn from him and talk about the challenges/opportunities that face us in the fascinating world we both inhabited. I thought about not sharing these episodes when I heard the news, but then decided that I don’t want you to lose out on the honour I had of learning from him direct. I hope that you will hear both his wisdom and his challenge, and also aspire to do better, as I do, as a result. Thank you Simon.

https://www.bva.co.uk/news-and-blog/news-article/remembering-the-inspirational-life-of-simon-doherty/

I’ve decided to keep the focus on Simon and just put some graphics and links here that might supporting learning more about antimicrobial resistance and One Health. At some point when the loss of Simon has had a little more time to be processed I will think about writing something in a little more depth reflecting on his comments and the overlap between human health and veterinary medicine. Until then, the links to the episodes are below:

Ahmad Nayeem , Joji Ronni Mol , Shahid Mohammad. (2023). Evolution and implementation of One Health to control the dissemination of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and resistance genes: A review. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology

Episode One

Rhouma, M., Soufi, L., Cenatus, S., Archambault, M., & Butaye, P. (2022). Current Insights Regarding the Role of Farm Animals in the Spread of Antimicrobial Resistance from a One Health Perspective. Veterinary Sciences9(9), 480. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci9090480

Episode Two

Sanseverino, Isabella & Navarro, Anna & Loos, Robert & Marinov, Dimitar & Lettieri, Teresa. (2018). State of the Art on the Contribution of Water to Antimicrobial Resistance. 10.2760/771124

Episode Three

Sanseverino, Isabella & Navarro, Anna & Loos, Robert & Marinov, Dimitar & Lettieri, Teresa. (2018). State of the Art on the Contribution of Water to Antimicrobial Resistance. 10.2760/771124

Episode Four

Sanseverino, Isabella & Navarro, Anna & Loos, Robert & Marinov, Dimitar & Lettieri, Teresa. (2018). State of the Art on the Contribution of Water to Antimicrobial Resistance. 10.2760/771124

Episode Five

Sanseverino, Isabella & Navarro, Anna & Loos, Robert & Marinov, Dimitar & Lettieri, Teresa. (2018). State of the Art on the Contribution of Water to Antimicrobial Resistance. 10.2760/771124

Episode Six

Sanseverino, Isabella & Navarro, Anna & Loos, Robert & Marinov, Dimitar & Lettieri, Teresa. (2018). State of the Art on the Contribution of Water to Antimicrobial Resistance. 10.2760/771124

Other resources

All opinions in this blog are my own

Guest Blog by Callum Barnes: Why the university lab is different to the pathology lab (and why we should plug the gap)

I’m back from a lovely week away at Disneyland Paris, celebrating Christmas and escaping reality (a post on Disney and denial as a coping mechanism is on its way). Whilst I am still struggling with the return to reality this weeks blog post is supplied by the wonderful Callum Barnes. Callum is a disciple of the biomedical sciences, current master’s student creating a more authentic lab experience for those after me, aspiring consultant microbiologist (the best discipline, sorry Claire – you see he understands, like me, that micro will always trump immunology).

Callum is supervised by Dr Claire Walker who is a paid up member of the Dream Team since 2013, token immunologist and occasional defector from the Immunology Mafia. Registered Clinical Scientist in Immunology with a background in genetics (PhD), microbiology and immunology (MSc), biological sciences (mBiolSci), education (PgCert) and indecisiveness (everything else). Now a Senior Lecturer in Immunology at University of Lincoln. She has previously written many great guest blogs for The Girlymicrobiologist, including one on turning criticism into a catalyst for change.

Two years ago, I began a placement year in the microbiology department of a pathology lab, unsure of what was to come, and unsure of myself and my skillset as a scientist. As I think every scientist feels at some point, I was mostly concerned that I would be a hinderance to all the wonderful staff that were just trying to get on with their jobs. Everyone was amazing though and helped me develop the skills and confidence I needed to successfully complete my IBMS portfolio verification. Returning back to university for my final year, I found the lab-based work so much easier than in my second year with my experience, but… something was different. This wasn’t the same stuff I just spent the last year working on, where was the LIMS? The booking in of the samples, the investigative process and the, frankly, the occasional chaos were missing. That’s not to say the labs weren’t good – they were great – and the staff that developed and ran them miles better, but something felt like it was missing. And that’s when my now supervisor Dr Claire Walker came to me with a project for my Mbio year.

Claire and I both have experience in the NHS, herself a lot more than me, but we have both felt and experienced the environment that a pathology lab has. It has a very unique feel to it, slightly alive in my opinion. This is not a very common experience to have in academia though as most academics have a research background, which means that the practical pathology side of things can sometimes get lost when students do their practical work. As such, Claire and I have been working on creating a lab experience that is as authentic to an NHS pathology lab as possible.

But why even bother? The students are learning the same things, just in a different way, so does it really matter? Well in fact, yes, it does! As Claire has said previously, the pilot study she did had very good results, so the data is there to back up our work. But imagine for just a second that you are looking at applying for medicine, and you have two offers. One university offers a fully simulated experience using manikins and actors – the whole shebang. And the other university teaches mostly through theory and shadowing – no practical experience is offered. I know which course I would enjoy and learn the most from. Medical schools know this too and is why most of them offer simulated teaching – it makes for better doctors too.

So, we should really ask, why isn’t this offered for biomedical scientists? Maybe it’s cost, maybe there isn’t the associated prestige. Whatever it is, I am sure that our work will guarantee a truly authentic clinical laboratory experience here on the iBMS accredited course at the University of Lincoln – something I know will provide the right skills for the pathologists of tomorrow.

All opinions in this blog are my own

Let’s Talk Antimicrobial Resistance for World Antimicrobial Awareness Week (WAAW) 2024

I’ve posted in previous years about what antimicrobials are, what antimicrobial resistance may mean for individuals, as well as some thoughts about how we might communicate around some of the challenges linked to antimicrobial resistance in a difference way, or plan our outreach differently. This year I wanted to sign post to some resources that I have either been involved with or found useful in order to help support both our own learning and planning responses to some of the common misconceptions about AMR  I hear when I’m out and about talking to people.

What is antimicrobial resistance?

The World Health Organisation (WHO) talks about it like this:

Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) occurs when bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites no longer respond to antimicrobial medicines. As a result of drug resistance, antibiotics and other antimicrobial medicines become ineffective and infections become difficult or impossible to treat, increasing the risk of disease spread, severe illness, disability and death.

I think it’s easy to forget that although AMR is a big part of the professional life of most Infection Control and microbiology professionals, even for other healthcare professionals it features less often, let alone for members of the public. It can be surprising therefore when you do go out and about, or even just talk to friends and family, to hear some of the ways that non infection professionals think about how AMR works and who it impacts.

Common misconceptions I hear when talking to people about AMR:

  • It’s the body that becomes resistant to antibiotics
  • I have never taken antibiotics so I cannot get a resistant infection
  • Antibiotics treat all types of infection
  • Antibiotics can be stopped when the symptoms stop
  • Only infected patients can transmit antimicrobial resistance

If you reflect on some of these myths, it’s actually pretty easy to understand how they come about. Most people are focused on themselves and act from a human centric point of view. Many people give little, if any, thought to the multitudes of living bacteria that co-exist in their bodies. Once you accept this as the starting point, most of these myths are actually based on pretty small mental leaps. If, however, you don’t switch your point of view before you start having conversations about AMR, you can unwittingly end up reinforcing the very misconceptions you were aiming to address.

One of the reasons that I think this post is timely right now, is that I am already seeing more posts linked to how we should not be putting artificial medications into our bodies, alongside the back lash against vaccines, and so it seems to me a good time to remember what a difference these, now common, medical interventions have made to the lives of individuals and public health in general.

Let’s start with a little bit of context

Hardly any of us will have living memory of life without access to antibiotics and what life was like in a world without vaccination. One way to really get a feel for the impact these common interventions have made is to look at the impact in the last 30 years on reducing child mortality (death). Even in this recent time period, massive progress has been made due to advances such as the rota virus vaccine, but also in getting more global access to antimicrobial therapy where it is most needed.

Public health is multi factorial, with impacts being cumulative and made by more than just one thing, so not all of these impacts are made by antibiotic and vaccine availability. Other steps to reduce death linked to infectious disease include everything from clean water and sewer systems to pasteurisation and other means of food safety controls. The impact of these combined approaches is massive, but as the UN sustainable development goals show us, those of us who are access to clean water are not actually in the majority and more is yet to be done to ensure equality of access.

To aim to undo some if not all of this century plus of progress is something I find pretty hard to process. If you’ll forgive the momentary indulgence, I have to state that I think the current anti-vaccine and general anti medical stance that is being seen within some groups and communities is ultimately an act of extreme privilege It’s a privilege to be able to choose not to access something that is readily available to you and not available to others.  It is a privilege not to have to live first hand the consequences of what the alternative might hold. It’s also a privilege to be able to change your mind and choose to access something later. Thinking of things in this light doesn’t necessarily help with having conversations in a supportive and open way when some of the underlying thinking may be so different, but it may mean we can flip the dialogue from one of imposition to one about the power of choice, and supporting evidenced based decision making for all.

Where does AMR come into this?

There’s a big stat that everyone quotes about more people dying from AMR than cancer by 2050, with an estimated 10 million deaths. As a scientist, I get the need to quantify and use numbers, as a human being however, I find that numbers that are so big can just be off-putting. They are so large it can make us, as individuals, feel powerless to impact them.

For me, the reason this conversation is so important to have in the right way, and pitched to the right communities, is because if we are going through a period of global push back against the common interventions, such as vaccination, that have successfully reduced mortality and provided first line protection, then our final line of defence in terms of treatment is now even more vital. 2050 isn’t that far away, and we are already seeing consequences linked to more resistant organisms being identified in severe infections. Therefore, the time to be having conversations and really raising awareness to impact decision-making is now. Sadly, this is coinciding with a period of time when trust in healthcare professionals and science in general feels very low. Instead of being defeated by this, however, we need to use it a driver to really focus on how we can do it better.

One of the other reasons that AMR is both important and challenging to communicate is that it is always in constant flux. You can’t just learn about it and move on. The mechanisms change, the diagnostics change, and the interplay of all of these factors within the bacterial host interactions can make it even more complex and hard to engage with. To exemplify this, the figure below was something I saw posted on Bluesky and fell in love with, as I adore the fact that it lists all kinds of routes to AMR in a single image, thus capturing the complexity of what we’re dealing with.

That said, you don’t have to understand all or any of this image to understand the core of why AMR is going to be a problem moving forward. The main thing to take away from it is that AMR is complicated, and as a result you will hear many different messages linked to it, and those messages will continue to change as we learn more and the impacts are felt differently. As a result, it can then sound like we don’t know what we’re doing, or just end up really off putting, as there isn’t one clear message we are getting out there for people to cling onto. We, therefore, need to build this flexibility into messages and link around core themes rather than trying to talk in absolutes. Otherwise, we risk losing more of the public confidence than has already occurred.

What is being done nationally?

This year, a new version of the UKs National Action Plan for confronting AMR has been released and within it there is a strong focus on the acknowledged need to educate both members of the public and healthcare professionals on AMR.

There is also plenty in there about increasing equitable access to antimicrobials, the need to improve diagnostics to help support both diagnostic and antimicrobial stewardship, and something that pleased me greatly, a special mention of the role of the built environment in managing AMR.

The thing is, top-down approaches will only ever get us so far. At some point, those of us involved in all things infection also need to be consciously including some of these drivers in our own every day practice.

No one can do everything, but whether you are collaborating with industry, undertaking research, or working in clinical practice, we have to embed AMR based action into our encounters. Do you include an AMR slide into all of your teaching? No matter the audience? Do you take the moment when it comes up with friends and family to just talk about the fact that this issue exists? Can you free up some capacity and undertake some public engagement?

Recognising there is a need is not the same thing as addressing that need, and we also have to be there to hold strategic partners and organisations to account in order to make sure action happens. So, let’s consciously match that top-down approach with a bottom-up drive for change.

What resources are there to help talk about AMR to other professionals

Having talked a lot about the need to talk to other healthcare professionals and seeing so much about #WAAW this year, it does really feel progress is being made to support us all to do this better.

Those of you who are UK based have probably heard of and support the Antibiotic Guardian programme (https://antibioticguardian.com/). This programme has lots of resources and supports personal action by asking you make a specific pledge about what you will undertake linked to addressing AMR.

Every year, new infographics come out that talk about different aspects of AMR. Some of these, like the one above, link AMR into commonly known components of healthcare practice, such as hand hygiene, in order to support individuals to feel empowered to act. Others focus more on messaging about antibiotic courses, or as we heard a lot about at the FIS/HIS conference last week, things like IV to oral switches, and sending the right samples to enable a switch from broad to narrow spectrum antibiotics. There’s plenty of ones out there now that can be really useful to embed in talks or laminate and put up on walls. The UKHSA especially have recently released a lot for WAAW, and because there are so many, you can keep them on rotation so that they don’t just become invisible as people see them too frequently.

I’ve also been involved in creating various content this year, as have many others, including webinars and podcasts to explore some of the issues linked to AMR and provide different routes via which healthcare professionals can engage with information and CPD on this topic. I’ve included a link to just one of these below in case it’s of interest, but a quick internet search will provide you with all kinds of others.

https://www.selectscience.net/webinar/resistance-on-the-rise

The main thing to remember is that we all like to receive our learning in different ways, and so ensuring that we remember that when we’re designing our education strategies is one of the best ways to be impactful.

What resources are there to help talk about AMR to members of the public

The resources you might want to use linked to AMR will vary greatly based on your target audience. It’s important to remember that even if someone is a healthcare worker they are also a member of the public, and depending on their personal background or setting they work in, utilising content created for the general public may serve both purposes.

There is some really great video, podcast, infographic, blog, and other content aimed at public outreach on AMR. There’s even a musical called The Mold that Changed the World, about Fleming and Penicillin, as the first antibiotic.

There are lots of different entry points when you are thinking about content that might be appropriate, and you’re likely to go to different depths depending on whether you are doing a one off encounter or a more prolonged piece of relationship building.

The post that is linked to at the start of this article on AMR as a Super Wicked Problem may help with choosing your content. You may also want to consciously address some of the myths mentioned at the start or even start your conversation with the fact that many antibiotics actually started as products identified in nature, and so are not as far from natural compounds as may be frequently thought.

Some of you who have been reading this blog for a while will know how proud and passionate I am about The Nosocomial Project, which aims to use a science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics (STEAM) approach to talk about infection and infection risks.

As part of this work, we organised a two part festival linked to AMR entitled Rise of the Resistance Festival. All of the content is split across YouTube and the website. I’ve included linked here in case any of it is useful in your own settings when you are looking for inspiration or planning content. The content covered in the festival included everything from a play aimed at pre-school aged children entitled Sock the Puppet, who is a hand puppet who is scared of germs, expert panels, comedy sets, and Klebsiella as a drag queen. I still have so much fun rediscovering this content, and I hope you’ll feel the same way.

I would make a plea that we all work together on this one to do some myth busting and get messages about AMR out there, but also find a way to get messages across that are entertaining/joyous and filled with hope for what we can achieve, rather than focusing on the horrors of what happens if we don’t get our act sorted. I think all of us, including healthcare professionals, have had our fill of trauma in the last few years. So, let’s focus on empowerment and positivity to make this change happen, rather than following in the footsteps of those who want a world of decisions driven by fear.

All opinions in this blog are my own