Background Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing is common in primary care (PC), particularly for respiratory tract diagnoses (RTDs). However, the optimal approach for improving prescribing remains unknown. Methods We conducted a stepped-wedge study in PC practices within a health system to assess the impact of a provider-targeted intervention on antibiotic prescribing for RTDs. RTDs were grouped into tiers based on appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing: tier 1 (almost always indicated), tier 2 (may be indicated), and tier 3 (rarely indicated). Providers received education on appropriate RTD prescribing followed by monthly peer comparison feedback on antibiotic prescribing for (1) all tiers and (2) tier 3 RTDs. Chi-squared testing was used to compare the proportion of visits with antibiotic prescriptions before and during the intervention. Mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the association between the intervention and antibiotic prescribing. Results Across 30 PC practices and 185,755 total visits, overall antibiotic prescribing was reduced with the intervention, from 35.2% to 23.0% of visits (p<0.001). In multivariable analysis, the intervention was associated with a reduced odds of antibiotic prescription for tiers 2 (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.52 – 0.62) and 3 (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.53 – 0.61), but not for tier 1 (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.83 – 1.16). Conclusion A provider-focused intervention reduced overall antibiotic prescribing for RTDs without affecting prescribing for infections that likely require antibiotics. Future research should examine the sustainability of such interventions, potential unintended adverse effects on patient health or satisfaction, and provider perceptions and acceptability.
BackgroundAntimicrobial stewardship often focuses on inpatients, yet inappropriate antimicrobial use is common in the outpatient setting. We performed a prospective, stepped wedge interventional study to assess the impact of an educational and feedback-based intervention on prescribing practices for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in the adult primary care ambulatory setting.MethodsFamily and internal medicine practices were randomly placed into 6 cohorts, which received the intervention in a stepped wedge fashion at monthly intervals. The study period was July 1, 2016 to October 31, 2018, with the intervention occurring from October 1, 2017 to October 31, 2018. The intervention consisted of a 20-minute in-person educational session on appropriate antimicrobial prescribing for RTIs followed by monthly feedback to individual providers on their proportion of antibiotic prescriptions in comparison to their peers for (1) visits with a primary diagnosis of any RTI and (2) visits with a primary diagnosis of an RTI for which an antibiotic should rarely be prescribed (tier 3 diagnoses). The outcome of interest was whether an antibiotic was prescribed in RTI visits. Chi squared testing and logistic regression were used for analysis.ResultsThirty-two practices participated, with 197,814 unique visits with a primary RTI diagnosis. Of these, 141,888 (71.7%) were physician visits and 55,926 (28.3%) were advanced practitioner visits (Figure 1). The proportion of visits with antibiotic prescriptions dropped from 37.2% to 24.0% following the intervention (P < 0.0001). Antibiotic prescriptions were significantly reduced for all primary RTI visits, OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.54), as well as for visits with tier 3 RTI diagnoses, OR 0.64 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.68). The proportion of visits with antibiotic prescriptions also exhibited a marked seasonal variation, another finding of the study (Figure 2).ConclusionAn educational intervention with provider feedback successfully reduced antibiotic prescribing for RTIs in the ambulatory setting. Additional study is necessary to assess the sustainability of response over time after discontinuation of the monthly feedback. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.
BackgroundOver 260 million antibiotic courses are prescribed in ambulatory settings per year in the United States: 41% of which are for acute respiratory tract infections (ARTI). Over 50% of these antibiotic courses are inappropriate. However, interventions to improve ambulatory prescribing are little studied, and metrics to track antibiotic use are not well validated.MethodsTo validate metrics for ARTIs in adults, we conducted a retrospective cohort study from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 at 32 primary care practices. We randomly selected 1,200 office visits with a coded respiratory tract diagnosis and determined by medical record review the proportion of visits in which antibiotic prescription was inappropriate using modified Infectious Diseases Society of America treatment guidelines. We determined clinic and provider characteristics associated with inappropriate prescribing. By linear regression, we also determined the aggregate metrics best correlated with inappropriate antibiotic prescribing.ResultsAn antibiotic was prescribed in 37% of visits in which a respiratory tract diagnosis was coded. Of these prescriptions, 69% were inappropriate. Demographics associated with inappropriate prescribing included advance practice provider vs. physician (72% vs. 58%, P = 0.02), family medicine vs. internal medicine (75% vs. 63%, P = 0.01), board certification after vs. before 1997 (75% vs. 63%, P = 0.02), and practice in a non-teaching vs. teaching clinic (73% vs. 51%, P < 0.001). Rate of antibiotic prescribing in visits where any respiratory tract diagnosis was coded (R2 = 0.23, P < 0.001) and rate of antibiotic prescribing in visits where a respiratory tract diagnosis that almost never requires an antibiotic was coded (R2 = 0.24, P < 0.0001) were most strongly correlated with inappropriate prescribing.ConclusionRate of antibiotic prescribing in visits where any respiratory tract diagnosis was coded and rate of antibiotic prescribing in visits where a respiratory tract diagnosis that almost never requires an antibiotic was coded may be useful proxies to estimate the rate of inappropriate prescribing for ARTIs. This study could inform ambulatory antibiotic benchmarking metrics and interventions to decrease inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for ARTIs in ambulatory settings.Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.
Background: Automatic discontinuation of antimicrobial orders after a prespecified duration of therapy has been adopted as a strategy for reducing excess days of therapy (DOT) as part of antimicrobial stewardship efforts. Automatic stop orders have been shown to decrease antimicrobial DOT. However, inadvertent treatment interruptions may occur as a result, potentially contributing to adverse patient outcomes. To evaluate the effects of this practice, we examined the impact of the removal of an electronic 7-day ASO program on hospitalized patients. Methods: We performed a quasi-experimental study on inpatients in 3 acute-care academic hospitals. In the preintervention period (automatic stop orders present; January 1, 2016, to February 28, 2017), we had an electronic dashboard to identify and intervene on unintentionally missed doses. In the postintervention period (April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018), the automatic stop orders were removed. We compared the primary outcome, DOT per 1,000 patient days (PD) per month, for patients in the automatic stop orders present and absent periods. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare median monthly DOT/1,000 PD. Interrupted time series analysis (Prais-Winsten model) was used to compared trends in antibiotic DOT/1,000 PD and the immediate impact of the automatic stop order removal. Manual chart review on a subset of 300 patients, equally divided between the 2 periods, was performed to assess for unintentionally missed doses. Results: In the automatic stop order period, a monthly median of 644.5 antibiotic DOT/1,000 PD were administered, compared to 686.2 DOT/1,000 PD in the period without automatic stop orders (P < .001) (Fig. 1). Using interrupted time series analysis, there was a nonsignificant increase by 46.7 DOT/1,000 PD (95% CI, 40.8 to 134.3) in the month immediately following removal of automatic stop orders (P = .28) (Fig. 2). Even though the slope representing monthly change in DOT/1,000 PD increased in the period without automatic stop orders compared to the period with automatic stop orders, it was not statistically significant (P = .41). Manual chart abstraction revealed that in the period with automatic stop orders, 9 of 150 patients had 17 unintentionally missed days of therapy, whereas none (of 150 patients) in the period without automatic stop orders did. Conclusions: Following removal of the automatic stop orders, there was an overall increase in antibiotic use, although the change in monthly trend of antibiotic use was not significantly different. Even with a dashboard to identify missed doses, there was still a risk of unintentionally missed doses in the period with automatic stop orders. Therefore, this risk should be weighed against the modest difference in antibiotic utilization garnered from automatic stop orders.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.