Mailed feedback to primary care physicians on antibiotic prescribing for patients aged 65 years and older: pragmatic, factorial randomised controlled trial

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q1261

2024-06-13

BMJ

Abstract:In this research article by Kevin Schartz et al (BMJ 2024;385:e079329, doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-079329), some changes in the order of the author affiliations have been made.

medicine, general & internal

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Mailed feedback to primary care physicians on antibiotic prescribing for patients aged 65 years and older: pragmatic, factorial randomised controlled trial

Kevin L Schwartz,Jennifer Shuldiner,Bradley J Langford,Kevin A Brown,Susan E Schultz,Valerie Leung,Nick Daneman,Mina Tadrous,Holly O Witteman,Gary Garber,Jeremy M Grimshaw,Jerome A Leis,Justin Presseau,Michael S Silverman,Monica Taljaard,Tara Gomes,Meagan Lacroix,Jamie Brehaut,Kednapa Thavorn,Sharon Gushue,Lindsay Friedman,Merrick Zwarenstein,Noah Ivers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2024-079329

2024-06-05

BMJ

Abstract:Objectives: To evaluate whether providing family physicians with feedback on their antibiotic prescribing compared with that of their peers reduces antibiotic prescriptions. To also identify effects on antibiotic prescribing from case-mix adjusted feedback reports and messages emphasising antibiotic associated harms. Design: Pragmatic, factorial randomised controlled trial. Setting: Primary care physicians in Ontario, Canada PARTICIPANTS: All primary care physicians were randomly assigned a group if they were eligible and actively prescribing antibiotics to patients 65 years or older. Physicians were excluded if had already volunteered to receive antibiotic prescribing feedback from another agency, or had opted out of the trial. Intervention: A letter was mailed in January 2022 to physicians with peer comparison antibiotic prescribing feedback compared with the control group who did not receive a letter (4:1 allocation). The intervention group was further randomised in a 2x2 factorial trial to evaluate case-mix adjusted versus unadjusted comparators, and emphasis, or not, on harms of antibiotics. Main outcome measures: Antibiotic prescribing rate per 1000 patient visits for patients 65 years or older six months after intervention. Analysis was in the modified intention-to-treat population using Poisson regression. Results: 5046 physicians were included and analysed: 1005 in control group and 4041 in intervention group (1016 case-mix adjusted data and harms messaging, 1006 with case-mix adjusted data and no harms messaging, 1006 unadjusted data and harms messaging, and 1013 unadjusted data and no harms messaging). At six months, mean antibiotic prescribing rate was 59.4 (standard deviation 42.0) in the control group and 56.0 (39.2) in the intervention group (relative rate 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.94 to 0.96). Unnecessary antibiotic prescribing (0.89 (0.86 to 0.92)), prolonged duration prescriptions defined as more than seven days (0.85 (0.83 to 0.87)), and broad spectrum prescribing (0.94 (0.92 to 0.95)) were also significantly lower in the intervention group compared with the control group. Results were consistent at 12 months post intervention. No significant effect was seen for including emphasis on harms messaging. A small increase in antibiotic prescribing with case-mix adjusted reports was noted (1.01 (1.00 to 1.03)). Conclusions: Peer comparison audit and feedback letters significantly reduced overall antibiotic prescribing with no benefit of case-mix adjustment or harms messaging. Antibiotic prescribing audit and feedback is a scalable and effective intervention and should be a routine quality improvement initiative in primary care. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04594200.
Factors Associated with Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions and Barriers to Medicines Optimisation among Older Adults in Primary Care Settings: a Systematic Review

Zhijie Xu,Xujian Liang,Yue Zhu,Yiting Lu,Yuanqu Ye,Lizheng Fang,Yi Qian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2021-001325

2021-01-01

Family Medicine and Community Health

Abstract:Objective To identify factors that likely contribute to potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) among older adults in primary care settings, as well as barriers to medicines optimisation and recommended potential solutions. Design Systematic review. Eligibility criteria Quantitative studies that analysed the factors associated with PIPs among older adults (≥65 years) in primary care settings, and qualitative studies that explored perceived barriers and potential solutions to medicines optimisation for this population. Information sources PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CNKI and Wanfang. Results Of the 13 167 studies identified, 50 were included (14 qualitative, 34 cross-sectional and 2 cohort). Nearly all quantitative studies examined patient-related non-clinical factors (eg, age) and clinical factors (eg, number of medications) and nine studies examined prescriber-related factors (eg, physician age). A greater number of medications were identified as positively associated with PIPs in 25 quantitative studies, and a higher number of comorbidities, physical comorbidities and psychiatric comorbidities were identified as patient-related clinical risk factors for PIPs. However, other factors showed inconsistent associations with the PIPs. Barriers to medicines optimisation emerged within four analytical themes: prescriber related (eg, inadequate knowledge, concerns of adverse consequences, clinical inertia, lack of communication), patient related (eg, limited understanding, patient non-adherence, drug dependency), environment related (eg, lack of integrated care, insufficient investment, time constraints) and technology related (eg, complexity of implementation and inapplicable guidance). Recommended potential solutions were based on each theme of the barriers identified accordingly (eg, prescriber-related factors: incorporating training courses into continuing medical education). Conclusions Older adults with more drugs prescribed and comorbidities may have a greater risk of receiving PIPs in the primary care setting, but it remains unclear whether other factors are related. Barriers to medicines optimisation among primary care older adults comprise multiple factors, and evidence-based and targeted interventions are needed to address these difficulties. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020216258.
Effect of Antibiotic-Prescribing Feedback to High-Volume Primary Care Physicians on Number of Antibiotic Prescriptions: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Kevin L Schwartz,Noah Ivers,Bradley J Langford,Monica Taljaard,Drew Neish,Kevin A Brown,Valerie Leung,Nick Daneman,Javed Alloo,Michael Silverman,Emily Shing,Jeremy M Grimshaw,Jerome A Leis,Julie H C Wu,Gary Garber

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.2790

2021-09-01

Abstract:Importance: Antibiotic overuse contributes to adverse drug effects, increased costs, and antimicrobial resistance. Objective: To evaluate peer-comparison audit and feedback to high-prescribing primary care physicians (PCPs) and assess the effect of targeted messaging on avoiding unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions and avoiding long-duration prescribing. Design, setting, and participants: In this 3-arm randomized clinical trial, administrative data collected from IQVIA's Xponent database were used to recruit the highest quartile of antibiotic-prescribing PCPs (n = 3500) in Ontario, Canada. Interventions: Physicians were randomized 3:3:1 to receive a mailed letter sent in December 2018 addressing antibiotic treatment initiation (n = 1500), a letter addressing prescribing duration (n = 1500), or no letter (control; n = 500). Outliers at the 99th percentile at baseline for each arm were excluded from analysis. Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was total number of antibiotic prescriptions over 12 months postintervention. Secondary outcomes were number of prolonged-duration prescriptions (>7 days) and antibiotic drug costs (in Canadian dollars). Robust Poisson regression controlling for baseline prescriptions was used for analysis. Results: Of the 3465 PCPs included in analysis, 2405 (69.4%) were male, and 2116 (61.1%) were 25 or more years from their medical graduation. At baseline, PCPs receiving the antibiotic initiation letter and duration letter prescribed an average of 988 and 1000 antibiotic prescriptions, respectively; at 12 months postintervention, these PCPs prescribed an average of 849 and 851 antibiotic prescriptions, respectively. For the primary outcome of total antibiotic prescriptions 12 months postintervention, there was no statistically significant difference in total antibiotic use between PCPs who received the initiation letter compared with controls (relative risk [RR], 0.96; 97.5% CI, 0.92-1.01; P = .06) and a small statistically significant difference for the duration letter compared with controls (RR, 0.95; 97.5% CI, 0.91-1.00; P = .01). For PCPs receiving the duration letter, this corresponds to an average of 42 fewer antibiotic prescriptions over 12 months. There was no statistically significant difference between the letter arms. For the initiation letter, compared with controls there was an RR of 0.98 (97.5% CI, 0.93-1.03; P = .42) and 0.97 (97.5% CI, 0.92-1.02; P = .19) for the outcomes of prolonged-duration prescriptions and antibiotic drug costs, respectively. At baseline, PCPs who received the duration letter prescribed an average of 332 prolonged-duration prescriptions with $14 470 in drug costs. There was an 8.1% relative reduction (RR, 0.92; 97.5% CI, 0.87-0.97; P < .001) in prolonged-duration prescriptions, and a 6.1% relative reduction in antibiotic drug costs (RR, 0.94; 97.5% CI, 0.89-0.99; P = .01). This corresponds to an average of 24 fewer prolonged-duration prescriptions and $771 in drug cost savings per PCP over 12 months. Conclusions and relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, a single mailed letter to the highest-prescribing PCPs in Ontario, Canada providing peer-comparison feedback, including messaging on limiting antibiotic-prescribing durations, led to statistically significant reductions in total and prolonged-duration antibiotic prescriptions, as well as drug costs. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03776383.
Process evaluation of two large randomized controlled trials to understand factors influencing family physicians' use of antibiotic audit and feedback reports

Jennifer Shuldiner,Meagan Lacroix,Marianne Saragosa,Catherine Reis,Kevin L Schwartz,Sharon Gushue,Valerie Leung,Jeremy Grimshaw,Michael Silverman,Kednapa Thavorn,Jerome A Leis,Michael Kidd,Nick Daneman,Mina Tradous,Bradley Langford,Andrew M Morris,Jonathan Lam,Gary Garber,Jamie Brehaut,Monica Taljaard,Michelle Greiver,Noah Michael Ivers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01393-5

2024-09-16

Abstract:Background: Unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions in primary care are common and contribute to antimicrobial resistance in the population. Audit and feedback (A&F) on antibiotic prescribing to primary care can improve the appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing, but the optimal approach is uncertain. We performed two pragmatic randomized controlled trials of different approaches to audit and feedback. The trial results showed that A&F was associated with significantly reducing antibiotic prescribing. Still, the effect size was small, and the modifications to the A&F interventions tested in the trials were not associated with any change. Herein, we report a theory-informed qualitative process evaluation to explore potential mechanisms underlying the observed effects. Methods: Ontario family physicians in the intervention arms of both trials who were sent A&F letters were invited for one-on-one interviews. Purposive sampling was used to seek variation across interested participants in personal and practice characteristics. Qualitative analysis utilized inductive and deductive techniques informed by the Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory. Results: Modifications to the intervention design tested in the trial did not alter prescribing patterns beyond the changes made in response to the A&F overall for various reasons. Change in antibiotic prescribing in response to A&F depended on whether it led to the formation of specific intentions and whether those intentions translated to particular behaviours. Those without intentions to change tended to feel that their unique clinical context was not represented in the A&F. Those with intentions but without specific actions taken tended to express a lack of self-efficacy for avoiding a prescription in contexts with time constraints and/or without an ongoing patient relationship. Many participants noted that compared to overall prescribing, A&F on antibiotic prescription duration was perceived as new information and easily actionable. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that contextual factors, including the types of patients and the setting where they are seen, affect how clinicians react to audit and feedback. These results suggest a need to test tailored feedback reports that reflect the context of how, where, and why physicians prescribe antibiotics so that they might be perceived as more personal and more actionable. Trial registration: Clinical Trial registration IDs: NCT04594200, NCT05044052.
Pragmatic randomised trial assessing the impact of peer comparison and therapeutic recommendations, including repetition, on antibiotic prescribing patterns of family physicians across British Columbia for uncomplicated lower urinary tract infections

Greg Carney,Malcolm Maclure,David M Patrick,Jessica Otte,Anshula Ambasta,Wade Thompson,Colin Dormuth

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017296

2024-10-16

Abstract:Objective: To evaluate the impact of a personalised audit and feedback prescribing report (AF) and brief educational summary (ES) on empiric treatment of uncomplicated lower urinary tract infections (UTIs) by family physicians (FPs). Design: Cluster randomised control trial. Setting: The intervention was conducted in British Columbia, Canada between 23 September 2021 and 28 March 2022. Participants: We randomised 5073 FPs into a standard AF and ES intervention arm (n=1691), an ES-only arm (n=1691) and a control arm (n=1691). Interventions: The AF contained personalised and peer-comparison data on first-line antibiotic prescriptions for women with uncomplicated lower UTI and key therapeutic recommendations. The ES contained detailed, evidence-based UTI management recommendations, incorporated regional antibiotic resistance data and recommended nitrofurantoin as a first-line treatment. Main outcome measures: Nitrofurantoin as first-line pharmacological treatment for uncomplicated lower UTI, analysed using an intention-to-treat approach. Results: We identified 21 307 cases of uncomplicated lower UTI among the three trial arms during the study period. The impact of receiving both the AF and ES increased the relative probability of prescribing nitrofurantoin as first-line treatment for uncomplicated lower UTI by 28% (OR 1.28; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.52), relative to the delay arm. This translates to additional prescribing of nitrofurantoin as first-line treatment, instead of alternates, in an additional 8.7 cases of uncomplicated UTI per 100 FPs during the 6-month study period. Conclusion: AF prescribing data with educational materials can improve primary care prescribing of antibiotics for uncomplicated lower UTI. Trial registration number: NCT05817253.
Comparing antibiotic prescribing between clinicians in UK primary care: an analysis in a cohort study of eight different measures of antibiotic prescribing

Tjeerd Van Staa,Yan Li,Natalie Gold,Tim Chadborn,William Welfare,Victoria Palin,Darren M Ashcroft,Joanna Bircher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2020-012108

2022-03-03

Abstract:Background There is a need to reduce antimicrobial uses in humans. Previous studies have found variations in antibiotic (AB) prescribing between practices in primary care. This study assessed variability of AB prescribing between clinicians. Methods Clinical Practice Research Datalink, which collects electronic health records in primary care, was used to select anonymised clinicians providing 500+ consultations during 2012–2017. Eight measures of AB prescribing were assessed, such as overall and incidental AB prescribing, repeat AB courses and extent of risk-based prescribing. Poisson regression models with random effect for clinicians were fitted. Results 6111 clinicians from 466 general practices were included. Considerable variability between individual clinicians was found for most AB measures. For example, the rate of AB prescribing varied between 77.4 and 350.3 per 1000 consultations; percentage of repeat AB courses within 30 days ranged from 13.1% to 34.3%; predicted patient risk of hospital admission for infection-related complications in those prescribed AB ranged from 0.03% to 0.32% (5th and 95th percentiles). The adjusted relative rate between clinicians in rates of AB prescribing was 5.23. Weak correlation coefficients (<0.5) were found between most AB measures. There was considerable variability in case mix seen by clinicians. The largest potential impact to reduce AB prescribing could be around encouraging risk-based prescribing and addressing repeat issues of ABs. Reduction of repeat AB courses to prescribing habit of median clinician would save 21 813 AB prescriptions per 1000 clinicians per year. Conclusions The wide variation seen in all measures of AB prescribing and weak correlation between them suggests that a single AB measure, such as prescribing rate, is not sufficient to underpin the optimisation of AB prescribing.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Physician-reported barriers to using evidence-based antibiotic prescription guidelines in primary care: protocol for a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies using the Theoretical Domains Framework

Krystal Bursey,Amanda Hall,Andrea Pike,Holly Etchegary,Kris Aubrey-Bassler,Andrea M Patey,Kristen Romme

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066681

IF: 3.006

2022-11-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:Introduction: Overprescription of antibiotics poses a significant threat to healthcare globally as it contributes to the issue of antibiotic resistance. While antibiotics should be predominately prescribed for bacterial infections, they are often inappropriately given for uncomplicated upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) and related conditions, such as the common cold. This study will involve a qualitative systematic review of physician-reported barriers to using evidence-based antibiotic prescription guidelines in primary care settings and synthesise the findings using a theoretical basis. Methods and analysis: We will conduct a systematic review of qualitative studies that assess physicians' reported barriers to following evidence-based antibiotic prescription guidelines in primary care settings for URTIs. We plan to search the following databases with no date or language restrictions: MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, the Cochrane Library and PsycInfo. Qualitative studies that explore the barriers and enablers to following antibiotic prescription guidelines for URTIs for primary care physicians will be included. We will analyse our findings using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), which is a theoretically designed resource based on numerous behaviour change theories grouped into 14 domains. Using the TDF approach, we will be able to identify the determinants of our behaviour of interest (ie, following antibiotic prescription guidelines for URTIs) and categorise them into the 14 TDF domains. This will provide the necessary information to develop future evidence-based interventions that will target the identified issues and apply the most effective behaviour change techniques to affect change. This protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval is not required. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences.
Evaluation of factors influencing antibiotic prescribing behaviour by independent nurse prescribers

Alyson Green

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12968/jprp.2024.6.3.104

2024-03-02

Journal of Prescribing Practice

Abstract:Antibiotic resistance is an urgent, accelerating global health threat due to inadequate infection prevention and control practices, and sub-optimal prescribing of antibiotics. Health professionals are required to practise antimicrobial stewardship to reduce incidence of antibiotic resistance, and this includes optimal prescribing behaviours. This study aimed to establish factors influencing medical prescribers' and independent nurse prescribers' antibiotic prescribing decisions, and compare the responses between practice settings. Independent nurse prescribers were invited to complete an online questionnaire with 17 antibiotic prescribing statements. Respondents rated their responses on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from totally disagree to totally agree. A total of 115 questionnaires were completed and analysed. The results showed independent nurse prescribers' antibiotic prescribing decisions may be influenced by patient expectations, diagnostic uncertainty, challenges related to patient follow-up, time pressures and remote consultations. Unlike medical prescribers, they do not report pressure to prescribe antibiotics to maintain a good relationship with the patient. Antibiotic prescribing decisions are influenced by a wide range of factors outside of clinical indication and further research is required to explore these in detail. Independent nurse prescribers require education and training tailored to their specific needs and practice settings.
Effect of Behavioral Interventions on Inappropriate Antibiotic Prescribing Among Primary Care Practices: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Daniella Meeker,Jeffrey A Linder,Craig R Fox,Mark W Friedberg,Stephen D Persell,Noah J Goldstein,Tara K Knight,Joel W Hay,Jason N Doctor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.0275

IF: 11.816

2016-02-09

JAMA

Abstract:Importance: Interventions based on behavioral science might reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Objective: To assess effects of behavioral interventions and rates of inappropriate (not guideline-concordant) antibiotic prescribing during ambulatory visits for acute respiratory tract infections. Design, setting, and participants: Cluster randomized clinical trial conducted among 47 primary care practices in Boston and Los Angeles. Participants were 248 enrolled clinicians randomized to receive 0, 1, 2, or 3 interventions for 18 months. All clinicians received education on antibiotic prescribing guidelines on enrollment. Interventions began between November 1, 2011, and October 1, 2012. Follow-up for the latest-starting sites ended on April 1, 2014. Adult patients with comorbidities and concomitant infections were excluded. Interventions: Three behavioral interventions, implemented alone or in combination: suggested alternatives presented electronic order sets suggesting nonantibiotic treatments; accountable justification prompted clinicians to enter free-text justifications for prescribing antibiotics into patients' electronic health records; peer comparison sent emails to clinicians that compared their antibiotic prescribing rates with those of "top performers" (those with the lowest inappropriate prescribing rates). Main outcomes and measures: Antibiotic prescribing rates for visits with antibiotic-inappropriate diagnoses (nonspecific upper respiratory tract infections, acute bronchitis, and influenza) from 18 months preintervention to 18 months afterward, adjusting each intervention's effects for co-occurring interventions and preintervention trends, with random effects for practices and clinicians. Results: There were 14,753 visits (mean patient age, 47 years; 69% women) for antibiotic-inappropriate acute respiratory tract infections during the baseline period and 16,959 visits (mean patient age, 48 years; 67% women) during the intervention period. Mean antibiotic prescribing rates decreased from 24.1% at intervention start to 13.1% at intervention month 18 (absolute difference, -11.0%) for control practices; from 22.1% to 6.1% (absolute difference, -16.0%) for suggested alternatives (difference in differences, -5.0% [95% CI, -7.8% to 0.1%]; P = .66 for differences in trajectories); from 23.2% to 5.2% (absolute difference, -18.1%) for accountable justification (difference in differences, -7.0% [95% CI, -9.1% to -2.9%]; P < .001); and from 19.9% to 3.7% (absolute difference, -16.3%) for peer comparison (difference in differences, -5.2% [95% CI, -6.9% to -1.6%]; P < .001). There were no statistically significant interactions (neither synergy nor interference) between interventions. Conclusions and relevance: Among primary care practices, the use of accountable justification and peer comparison as behavioral interventions resulted in lower rates of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01454947.
Evaluation of an automated feedback intervention to improve antibiotic prescribing among primary care physicians (OPEN Stewardship): a multinational controlled interrupted time-series study

Jean-Paul R Soucy,Marcelo Low,Kamal R Acharya,Moriah Ellen,Anette Hulth,Sonja Löfmark,Gary E Garber,William Watson,Jacob Moran-Gilad,Nadav Davidovitch,Tamar Amar,Janine McCready,Matthew Orava,John S Brownstein,Kevin A Brown,David N Fisman,Derek R MacFadden,Jean-Paul R. Soucy,Kamal R. Acharya,Gary E. Garber,John S. Brownstein,Kevin A. Brown,David N. Fisman,Derek R. MacFadden

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.00017-24

IF: 3.7

2024-02-29

Microbiology Spectrum

Abstract:ABSTRACT Tools to advance antimicrobial stewardship in the primary health care setting, where most antimicrobials are prescribed, are urgently needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate OPEN Stewarship (Online Platform for Expanding aNtibiotic Stewardship), an automated feedback intervention, among a cohort of primary care physicians. We performed a controlled, interrupted time-series study of 32 intervention and 725 control participants, consisting of primary care physicians from Ontario, Canada and Southern Israel, from October 2020 to December 2021. Intervention participants received three personalized feedback reports targeting several aspects of antibiotic prescribing. Study outcomes (overall prescribing rate, prescribing rate for viral respiratory conditions, prescribing rate for acute sinusitis, and mean duration of therapy) were evaluated using multilevel regression models. We observed a decrease in the mean duration of antibiotic therapy (IRR = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.90, 0.99) in intervention participants during the intervention period. We did not observe a significant decline in overall antibiotic prescribing (OR = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.07), prescribing for viral respiratory conditions (OR = 0.87; 95% CI: 0.73, 1.03), or prescribing for acute sinusitis (OR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.67, 1.07). In this antimicrobial stewardship intervention among primary care physicians, we observed shorter durations of therapy per antibiotic prescription during the intervention period. The COVID-19 pandemic may have hampered recruitment; a dramatic reduction in antibiotic prescribing rates in the months before our intervention may have made physicians less amenable to further reductions in prescribing, limiting the generalizability of the estimates obtained. IMPORTANCE Antibiotic overprescribing contributes to antibiotic resistance, a major threat to our ability to treat infections. We developed the OPEN Stewardship (Online Platform for Expanding aNtibiotic Stewardship) platform to provide automated feedback on antibiotic prescribing in primary care, where most antibiotics for human use are prescribed but where the resources to improve antibiotic prescribing are limited. We evaluated the platform among a cohort of primary care physicians from Ontario, Canada and Southern Israel from October 2020 to December 2021. The results showed that physicians who received personalized feedback reports prescribed shorter courses of antibiotics compared to controls, although they did not write fewer antibiotic prescriptions. While the COVID-19 pandemic presented logistical and analytical challenges, our study suggests that our intervention meaningfully improved an important aspect of antibiotic prescribing. The OPEN Stewardship platform stands as an automated, scalable intervention for improving antibiotic prescribing in primary care, where needs are diverse and technical capacity is limited.

microbiology
Interventions for improving antibiotic prescribing in the community: systematic review and meta-analysis

Rebecca A J Andrews,Virginia Hernandez Santiago,Bruce Guthrie,Charis Anne Marwick

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.11.20.24317684

2024-11-23

Abstract:Background Antibiotic resistance is a public health priority and antibiotic use in humans is a major contributing factor to its development. Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing in the community, where most antibiotics are prescribed, are widely implemented with varying effect. The aim was to systematically review and meta-analyse evidence on effectiveness of different types of antibiotic prescribing interventions in the community. Methods and Findings Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, were searched from database inception to 16 August 2021 to identify randomised controlled trials comparing antibiotic stewardship interventions versus usual care in community settings. Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Studies were grouped according to type of intervention. Meta-analyses employed random effects models. The outcome for meta-analyses was change in total antibiotic prescribing rates attributable to the intervention, compared to usual care, calculated as percentage differences. Other measures of change in antibiotic prescribing were included in narrative description. Of 26,130 studies screened, 74 were included, with 53 comparisons from 45 studies meta-analysed. 50% of included studies had high risk of bias. Single interventions with statistically significant reductions in total antibiotic prescribing were point of care tests for antigen detection (-28.0% reduction, 95%CI -38.2 to -17.8); educational materials (-17.0%, -31.0 to -3.0); printed decision-support systems (-10.8%, -15.7 to -6.0), educational workshops (-8.7%, -12.8 to -4.7), and; educational outreach (-6.0%, -10.6 to -1.4). Multifaceted interventions were not more effective than single interventions (education + audit and feedback –9.9%, -12.8 to -7.0; other multifaceted -9.4%, -17.2 to -1.6). Effect sizes in sensitivity analyses excluding trials at high risk of bias were similar or larger. Conclusions Community antibiotic stewardship interventions were effective but with considerable variation in effect size. The most effective trial interventions may be more difficult to implement in practice, a key challenge for antibiotic stewardship. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42014010160
Perception and views about individualising antibiotic duration for respiratory tract infections when patients feel better: a qualitative study with primary care professionals

Moragas,A.,Uguet,P.,Cots,J. M.,Boada,A.,Bjerrum,L.,Llor,C.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080131

IF: 3.006

2024-02-07

BMJ Open

Abstract:Background Evidence shows a high rate of unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in primary care. There is increasing evidence showing that shorter courses for RTIs are safe and help in reducing antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Stopping antibiotics earlier, as soon as patients feel better, rather than completing antibiotic courses, may help reduce unnecessary exposure to antibiotics and AMR. Objectives The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions and views of primary care healthcare professionals about customising antibiotic duration for RTIs by asking patients to stop the antibiotic course when they feel better. Design Qualitative research. Setting and participants A total of 21 qualitative interviews with primary care professionals (experts and non-experts in AMR) were conducted from June to September 2023. Data were audiorecorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Results Overall, experts seemed more amenable to tailoring the antibiotic duration for RTIs when patients feel better. They also found the dogma of 'completing the course' to be obsolete, as evidence is changing and reducing the duration might lead to less AMR, but claimed that evidence that this strategy is as beneficial and safe as fixed courses was unambiguous. Non-experts, however, believed the dogma of completing the course. Clinicians expressed mixed views on what feeling better might mean, supporting a shared decision-making approach when appropriate. Participants claimed good communication to professionals and patients, but were sceptical about the risk of medicalisation when asking patients to contact clinicians again for a check-up visit. Conclusions Clinicians reported positive and negative views about individualising antibiotic courses for RTIs, but, in general, experts supported a customised antibiotic duration as soon as patients feel better. The information provided by this qualitative study will allow improving the performance of a large randomised clinical trial aimed at evaluating if this strategy is safe and beneficial.

medicine, general & internal
Changing antibiotic prescribing practices in outpatient primary care settings in China: Study protocol for a health information system-based cluster-randomised crossover controlled trial

Yue Chang,Yuanfan Yao,Zhezhe Cui,Guanghong Yang,Duan Li,Lei Wang,Lei Tang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259065

IF: 3.7

2022-01-07

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Background The overuse and abuse of antibiotics is a major risk factor for antibiotic resistance in primary care settings of China. In this study, the effectiveness of an automatically-presented, privacy-protecting, computer information technology (IT)-based antibiotic feedback intervention will be evaluated to determine whether it can reduce antibiotic prescribing rates and unreasonable prescribing behaviours. Methods We will pilot and develop a cluster-randomised, open controlled, crossover, superiority trial. A total of 320 outpatient physicians in 6 counties of Guizhou province who met the standard will be randomly divided into intervention group and control group with a primary care hospital being the unit of cluster allocation. In the intervention group, the three components of the feedback intervention included: 1. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based real-time warnings of improper antibiotic use; 2. Pop-up windows of antibiotic prescription rate ranking; 3. Distribution of educational manuals. In the control group, no form of intervention will be provided. The trial will last for 6 months and will be divided into two phases of three months each. The two groups will crossover after 3 months. The primary outcome is the 10-day antibiotic prescription rate of physicians. The secondary outcome is the rational use of antibiotic prescriptions. The acceptability and feasibility of this feedback intervention study will be evaluated using both qualitative and quantitative assessment methods. Discussion This study will overcome limitations of our previous study, which only focused on reducing antibiotic prescription rates. AI techniques and an educational intervention will be used in this study to effectively reduce antibiotic prescription rates and antibiotic irregularities. This study will also provide new ideas and approaches for further research in this area. Trial registration ISRCTN, ID: ISRCTN13817256 . Registered on 11 January 2020.

multidisciplinary sciences
Behavioral Nudges to Improve Audit and Feedback Report Opening Among Antibiotic Prescribers: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Nick Daneman,Samantha Lee,Heming Bai,Chaim M Bell,Susan E Bronskill,Michael A Campitelli,Gail Dobell,Longdi Fu,Gary Garber,Noah Ivers,Matthew Kumar,Jonathan M C Lam,Bradley Langford,Celia Laur,Andrew M Morris,Cara L Mulhall,Ruxandra Pinto,Farah E Saxena,Kevin L Schwartz,Kevin A Brown

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofac111

2022-03-02

Open Forum Infectious Diseases

Abstract:Abstract Background Peer comparison audit and feedback has demonstrated effectiveness in improving antibiotic prescribing practices, but only a minority of prescribers view their reports. We rigorously tested 3 behavioral nudging techniques delivered by email to improve report opening. Methods We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial among Ontario long-term care prescribers enrolled in an ongoing peer comparison audit and feedback program which includes data on their antibiotic prescribing patterns. Physicians were randomized to 1 of 8 possible sequences of intervention/control allocation to 3 different behavioral email nudges: a social peer comparison nudge (January 2020), a maintenance of professional certification incentive nudge (October 2020), and a prior participation nudge (January 2021). The primary outcome was feedback report opening; the primary analysis pooled the effects of all 3 nudging interventions. Results The trial included 421 physicians caring for >28 000 residents at 450 facilities. In the pooled analysis, physicians opened only 29.6% of intervention and 23.9% of control reports (odds ratio [OR], 1.51 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.10–2.07], P = .011); this difference remained significant after accounting for physician characteristics and clustering (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.74 [95% CI, 1.24–2.45], P = .0014). Of individual nudging techniques, the prior participation nudge was associated with a significant increase in report opening (OR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.06–2.47], P = .026; aOR, 2.16 [95% CI, 1.33–3.50], P = .0018). In the pooled analysis, nudges were also associated with accessing more report pages (aOR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.14–1.43], P < .001). Conclusions Enhanced nudging strategies modestly improved report opening, but more work is needed to optimize physician engagement with audit and feedback. Clinical Trials Registration NCT04187742.

immunology,infectious diseases,microbiology
The Effect of Expert Feedback on Antibiotic Prescribing in Pediatrics: Experimental Evidence

Kerstin Eilermann,Katrin Halstenberg,Ludwig Kuntz,Kyriakos Martakis,Bernhard Roth,Daniel Wiesen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X19866699

2019-11-25

Medical Decision Making

Abstract:Background. Inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics, which is common in pediatric care, is a key driver of antimicrobial resistance. To mitigate the development of resistance, antibiotic stewardship programs often suggest the inclusion of feedback targeted at individual providers. Empirically, however, it is not well understood how feedback affects individual physicians' antibiotic prescribing decisions. Also, the question of how physicians' characteristics, such as clinical experience, relate to antibiotic prescribing decisions and to responses to feedback is largely unexplored. Objective. To analyze the causal effect of descriptive expert feedback (and individual characteristics) on physicians' antibiotic prescribing decisions in pediatrics. Design. We employed a randomized, controlled framed field experiment, in which German pediatricians ( n =73) decided on the length of first-line antibiotic treatment for routine pediatric cases. In the intervention group ( n =39), pediatricians received descriptive feedback in form of an expert benchmark, which allowed them to compare their own prescribing decisions with expert recommendations. The recommendations were elicited in a survey of pediatric department directors ( n =20), who stated the length of antibiotic therapies they would choose for the routine cases. Pediatricians' characteristics were elicited in a comprehensive questionnaire. Results. Providing pediatricians with expert feedback significantly reduced the length of antibiotic therapies by 10% on average. Also, the deviation of pediatricians' decisions from experts' recommendations significantly decreased. Antibiotic therapy decisions were significantly related to pediatricians' clinical experience, risk attitudes, and personality traits. The effect of feedback was significantly associated with physicians' experience. Conclusion. Our results indicate that descriptive expert feedback can be an effective means to guide pediatricians, especially those who are inexperienced, toward more appropriate antibiotic prescribing. Therefore, it seems to be suitable for inclusion in antibiotic stewardship programs.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics,health policy & services
Determinants of inappropriate antibiotic prescription in primary care in developed countries with general practitioners as gatekeepers: a systematic review and construction of a framework

Martijn Sijbom,Frederike L Büchner,Nicholas H Saadah,Mattijs E Numans,Mark G J de Boer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065006

IF: 3.006

2023-05-18

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objectives This study aimed to identify determinants of inappropriate antibiotic prescription in primary care in developed countries and to construct a framework with the determinants to help understand which actions can best be targeted to counteract development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Design A systematic review of peer-reviewed studies reporting determinants of inappropriate antibiotic prescription published through 9 September 2021 in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library was performed. Setting All studies focusing on primary care in developed countries where general practitioners (GPs) act as gatekeepers for referral to medical specialists and hospital care were included. Results Seventeen studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were used for the analysis which identified 45 determinants of inappropriate antibiotic prescription. Important determinants for inappropriate antibiotic prescription were comorbidity, primary care not considered to be responsible for development of AMR and GP perception of patient desire for antibiotics. A framework was constructed with the determinants and provides a broad overview of several domains. The framework can be used to identify several reasons for inappropriate antibiotic prescription in a specific primary care setting and from there, choose the most suitable intervention(s) and assist in implementing them for combatting AMR. Conclusions The type of infection, comorbidity and the GPs perception of a patient's desire for antibiotics are consistently identified as factors driving inappropriate antibiotic prescription in primary care. A framework with determinants of inappropriate antibiotic prescription may be useful after validation for effective implementation of interventions for decreasing these inappropriate prescriptions. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023396225.

medicine, general & internal
Clinicians’ Views and Experiences of Interventions to Enhance the Quality of Antibiotic Prescribing for Acute Respiratory Tract Infections

Sibyl Anthierens,Sarah Tonkin-Crine,Jochen W. Cals,Samuel Coenen,Lucy Yardley,Lucy Brookes-Howell,Patricia Fernandez-Vandellos,Jaroslaw Krawczyk,Maciek Godycki-Cwirko,Carl Llor,Christopher C. Butler,Theo Verheij,Herman Goossens,Paul Little,Nick A. Francis,on behalf of the GRACE/CHAMP INTRO team,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-014-3076-6

IF: 5.7

2014-11-06

Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract:ABSTRACTBACKGROUNDEvidence shows a high rate of unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions in primary care in Europe and the United States. Given the costs of widespread use and associated antibiotic resistance, reducing inappropriate use is a public health priority.OBJECTIVEWe aimed to explore clinicians’ experiences of training in communication skills and use of a patient booklet and/or a C-reactive protein (CRP) point-of-care test to reduce antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections (RTIs).DESIGNWe used a qualitative research approach, interviewing clinicians who participated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) testing two contrasting interventions.PARTICIPANTSGeneral practice clinicians in Belgium, England, The Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Wales participated in the study.APPROACHSixty-six semi-structured interviews were transcribed verbatim, translated into English where necessary, and analysed using thematic and framework analysis.KEY RESULTSClinicians from all countries attributed benefits for themselves and their patients to using both interventions. Clinicians reported that the communication skills training and use of the patient booklet gave them greater confidence in addressing patient expectations for an antibiotic by providing answers to common questions and supporting the clinician’s own explanations. Clinicians felt the booklet could be used for a variety of patients and for different types of infections. The CRP test was viewed as a tool to decrease diagnostic uncertainty, to support non-prescription decisions, and to reassure patients, but was only necessary when clinicians were uncertain about the need for antibiotics.CONCLUSIONProviding clinicians with training and support tools for use in practice was received positively and was valued by clinicians across countries. Interventions seemed to have influenced behaviour by increasing clinician knowledge about illness severity and prescribing, increasing confidence in making non-prescribing decisions when antibiotics were unnecessary, and enabling clinicians to anticipate positive outcomes when making such decisions. Addressing such determinants of behaviour change enabled interventions to be relevant for clinicians working across different contexts.

medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services
General practitioner and nurse prescriber experiences of prescribing antibiotics for respiratory tract infections in UK primary care out-of-hours services (the UNITE study)

S J Williams,A V Halls,S Tonkin-Crine,M V Moore,S E Latter,P Little,C Eyles,K Postle,G M Leydon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkx429

2017-11-27

Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

Abstract:Background: Interventions are needed to reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections (RTIs). Although community antibiotic prescribing appears to be decreasing in the UK, figures for out-of-hours (OOH) prescribing have substantially increased. Understanding the factors influencing prescribing in OOH and any perceived differences between general practitioner (GP) and nurse prescriber (NP) prescribing habits may enable the development of tailored interventions promoting optimal prescribing in this setting.Objectives: To explore UK GP and NP views on and experiences of prescribing antibiotics for RTIs in primary care OOH services.Methods: Thirty semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs and NPs working in primary care OOH services. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyse data.Results: The research shows that factors particular to OOH influence antibiotic prescribing, including a lack of patient follow-up, access to patient GP records, consultation time, working contracts and implementation of feedback, audit and supervision. NPs reported perceptions of greater accountability for their prescribing compared with GPs and reported they had longer consultations during which they were able to discuss decisions with patients. Participants agreed that more complex cases should be seen by GPs and highlighted the importance of consistency of decision making, illness explanations to patients as well as a perception that differences in clinical training influence communication with patients and antibiotic prescribing decisions.Conclusions: Environmental and social factors in OOH services and a mixed healthcare workforce provide unique influences on antibiotic prescribing for RTIs, which would need to be considered in tailoring interventions that promote prudent antibiotic prescribing in OOH services.

pharmacology & pharmacy,infectious diseases,microbiology
Antibiotic Prescribing Patterns for Respiratory Tract Illnesses Following the Conclusion of an Education and Feedback Intervention in Primary Care

James J Harrigan,Keith W Hamilton,Leigh Cressman,Warren B Bilker,Kathleen O Degnan,Michael Z David,David Tran,David A Pegues,Lauren Dutcher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciad754

IF: 20.999

2024-01-27

Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract:Background A study previously conducted in primary care practices found that implementation of an educational session and peer comparison feedback was associated with reduced antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract diagnoses (RTDs). Here, we assess the long-term effects of this intervention on antibiotic prescribing following cessation of feedback. Methods RTD encounters were grouped into tiers based on antibiotic prescribing appropriateness: tier 1, almost always indicated; tier 2, possibly indicated; and tier 3, rarely indicated. A χ2 test was used to compare prescribing between 3 time periods: pre-intervention, intervention, and post-intervention (14 months following cessation of feedback). A mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the association between period and prescribing. Results We analyzed 260 900 RTD encounters from 29 practices. Antibiotic prescribing was more frequent in the post-intervention period than in the intervention period (28.9% vs 23.0%, P < .001) but remained lower than the 35.2% pre-intervention rate (P < .001). In multivariable analysis, the odds of prescribing were higher in the post-intervention period than the intervention period for tier 2 (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.10–1.30; P < .05) and tier 3 (OR, 1.20; 95% CI: 1.12–1.30) indications but was lower compared to the pre-intervention period for each tier (OR, 0.66; 95% CI: 0.59–0.73 tier 2; OR, 0.68; 95% CI: 0.61–0.75 tier 3). Conclusions The intervention effects appeared to last beyond the intervention period. However, without ongoing provider feedback, there was a trend toward increased prescribing. Future studies are needed to determine optimal strategies to sustain intervention effects.

immunology,infectious diseases,microbiology
Antibiotic prescribing patterns by age and sex in England: why we need to take this variation into account to evaluate antibiotic stewardship and AMR selection

Naomi R Waterlow,Tom Ashfield,Gwenan M Knight

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.10.24313389

2024-09-10

Abstract:Objectives The drivers of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) likely vary substantially by different demographics. However, few complete open national detailed data exist on how antibiotic use (ABU) varies by both age and sex. Methods Here, prescriptions of antibiotics from General Practices in England for 2015-2023 disaggregated by 5-year age bands and sex were analysed at the national and Integrated Care Board (ICB) level. From a total of 249,578,795 prescriptions (across 9 years), 63% were given to women and the most prescribed were amoxicillin, nitrofurantoin and flucloxacillin sodium. Prescriptions per 100K population varied substantially across sex, age, geographical region, season, year, COVID-19 pandemic period and drug. Results Most antibiotics were prescribed more to women across most age bands (84% of antibiotics had more prescriptions to females across 50% of age bands). We show how this variation requires a more nuanced approach to comparing ABU across geographies and highlight that AWaRe targets are not met uniformly (young men have a higher proportion of Watch antibiotic prescriptions). We also show the impact on ABU of time-sensitive interruptions, including differential age-targeted influenza vaccination, COVID-19 restrictions and a shortage of amoxicillin combined with a Streptococcus A outbreak. Comparing to open access AMR data (MRSA in bloodstream infections) highlights the complexity of the link between ABU and AMR. Conclusions These detailed differences in ABU across England suggest that there should be large variation in AMR burden by age and sex, which now need to be quantified with detailed open access AMR data for a better intervention design.

Public and Global Health

Mailed feedback to primary care physicians on antibiotic prescribing for patients aged 65 years and older: pragmatic, factorial randomised controlled trial

Mailed feedback to primary care physicians on antibiotic prescribing for patients aged 65 years and older: pragmatic, factorial randomised controlled trial

Factors Associated with Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions and Barriers to Medicines Optimisation among Older Adults in Primary Care Settings: a Systematic Review

Effect of Antibiotic-Prescribing Feedback to High-Volume Primary Care Physicians on Number of Antibiotic Prescriptions: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Process evaluation of two large randomized controlled trials to understand factors influencing family physicians' use of antibiotic audit and feedback reports

Pragmatic randomised trial assessing the impact of peer comparison and therapeutic recommendations, including repetition, on antibiotic prescribing patterns of family physicians across British Columbia for uncomplicated lower urinary tract infections

Comparing antibiotic prescribing between clinicians in UK primary care: an analysis in a cohort study of eight different measures of antibiotic prescribing

Physician-reported barriers to using evidence-based antibiotic prescription guidelines in primary care: protocol for a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies using the Theoretical Domains Framework

Evaluation of factors influencing antibiotic prescribing behaviour by independent nurse prescribers

Effect of Behavioral Interventions on Inappropriate Antibiotic Prescribing Among Primary Care Practices: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Evaluation of an automated feedback intervention to improve antibiotic prescribing among primary care physicians (OPEN Stewardship): a multinational controlled interrupted time-series study

Interventions for improving antibiotic prescribing in the community: systematic review and meta-analysis

Perception and views about individualising antibiotic duration for respiratory tract infections when patients feel better: a qualitative study with primary care professionals

Changing antibiotic prescribing practices in outpatient primary care settings in China: Study protocol for a health information system-based cluster-randomised crossover controlled trial

Behavioral Nudges to Improve Audit and Feedback Report Opening Among Antibiotic Prescribers: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The Effect of Expert Feedback on Antibiotic Prescribing in Pediatrics: Experimental Evidence

Determinants of inappropriate antibiotic prescription in primary care in developed countries with general practitioners as gatekeepers: a systematic review and construction of a framework

Clinicians’ Views and Experiences of Interventions to Enhance the Quality of Antibiotic Prescribing for Acute Respiratory Tract Infections

General practitioner and nurse prescriber experiences of prescribing antibiotics for respiratory tract infections in UK primary care out-of-hours services (the UNITE study)

Antibiotic Prescribing Patterns for Respiratory Tract Illnesses Following the Conclusion of an Education and Feedback Intervention in Primary Care

Antibiotic prescribing patterns by age and sex in England: why we need to take this variation into account to evaluate antibiotic stewardship and AMR selection