Dataset Information

Evaluating an audit and feedback intervention for reducing antibiotic prescribing behaviour in general dental practice (the RAPiD trial): a partial factorial cluster randomised trial protocol.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Antibiotic prescribing in dentistry accounts for 9% of total antibiotic prescriptions in Scottish primary care. The Scottish Dental Clinical Effectiveness Programme (SDCEP) published guidance in April 2008 (2nd edition, August 2011) for Drug Prescribing in Dentistry, which aims to assist dentists to make evidence-based antibiotic prescribing decisions. However, wide variation in prescribing persists and the overall use of antibiotics is increasing. METHODS:RAPiD is a 12-month partial factorial cluster randomised trial conducted in NHS General Dental Practices across Scotland. Its aim is to compare the effectiveness of individualised audit and feedback (A&F) strategies for the translation into practice of SDCEP recommendations on antibiotic prescribing. The trial uses routinely collected electronic healthcare data in five aspects of its design in order to: identify the study population; apply eligibility criteria; carry out stratified randomisation; generate the trial intervention; analyse trial outcomes. Eligibility was determined on contract status and a minimum level of recent NHS treatment provision. All eligible dental practices in Scotland were simultaneously randomised at baseline either to current audit practice or to an intervention group. Randomisation was stratified by single-handed/multi-handed practices. General dental practitioners (GDPs) working at intervention practices will receive individualised graphical representations of their antibiotic prescribing rate from the previous 14 months at baseline and an update at six months. GDPs could not be blinded to their practice allocation. Intervention practices were further randomised using a factorial design to receive feedback with or without: a health board comparator; a supplementary text-based intervention; additional feedback at nine months. The primary outcome is the total antibiotic prescribing rate per 100 courses of treatment over the year following delivery of the baseline intervention. A concurrent qualitative process evaluation will apply theory-based approaches using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to explore the acceptability of the interventions and the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify barriers and enablers to evidence-based antibiotic prescribing behaviour by GDPs. DISCUSSION:RAPiD will provide a robust evaluation of A&F in dentistry in Scotland. It also demonstrates that linked administrative datasets have the potential to be used efficiently and effectively across all stages of an randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49204710.

SUBMITTER: Prior M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4108126 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating an audit and feedback intervention for reducing antibiotic prescribing behaviour in general dental practice (the RAPiD trial): a partial factorial cluster randomised trial protocol.

Prior Maria M Elouafkaoui Paula P Elders Andrew A Young Linda L Duncan Eilidh M EM Newlands Rumana R Clarkson Jan E JE Ramsay Craig R CR

Implementation science : IS 20140424

<h4>Background</h4>Antibiotic prescribing in dentistry accounts for 9% of total antibiotic prescriptions in Scottish primary care. The Scottish Dental Clinical Effectiveness Programme (SDCEP) published guidance in April 2008 (2nd edition, August 2011) for Drug Prescribing in Dentistry, which aims to assist dentists to make evidence-based antibiotic prescribing decisions. However, wide variation in prescribing persists and the overall use of antibiotics is increasing.<h4>Methods</h4>RAPiD is a 12 ...[more]

PMID: 24758164

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Dentists prescribe approximately 10% of antibiotics dispensed in UK community pharmacies. Despite clear clinical guidance, dentists often prescribe antibiotics inappropriately. This cluster-randomised controlled trial used routinely collected National Health Service (NHS) dental prescribing and treatment claim data to compare the impact of individualised audit and feedback (A&F) interventions on dentists' antibiotic prescribing rates. METHODS AND FINDINGS:All 795 antibiotic prescribing NHS general dental practices in Scotland were included. Practices were randomised to the control (practices = 163; dentists = 567) or A&F intervention group (practices = 632; dentists = 1,999). A&F intervention practices were allocated to one of two A&F groups: (1) individualised graphical A&F comprising a line graph plotting an individual dentist's monthly antibiotic prescribing rate (practices = 316; dentists = 1,001); or (2) individualised graphical A&F plus a written behaviour change message synthesising and reiterating national guidance recommendations for dental antibiotic prescribing (practices = 316; dentists = 998). Intervention practices were also simultaneously randomised to receive A&F: (i) with or without a health board comparator comprising the addition of a line to the graphical A&F plotting the monthly antibiotic prescribing rate of all dentists in the health board; and (ii) delivered at 0 and 6 mo or at 0, 6, and 9 mo, giving a total of eight intervention groups. The primary outcome, measured by the trial statistician who was blinded to allocation, was the total number of antibiotic items dispensed per 100 NHS treatment claims over the 12 mo post-delivery of the baseline A&F. Primary outcome data was available for 152 control practices (dentists = 438) and 609 intervention practices (dentists = 1,550). At baseline, the number of antibiotic items prescribed per 100 NHS treatment claims was 8.3 in the control group and 8.5 in the intervention group. At follow-up, antibiotic prescribing had decreased by 0.4 antibiotic items per 100 NHS treatment claims in control practices and by 1.0 in intervention practices. This represents a significant reduction (-5.7%; 95% CI -10.2% to -1.1%; p = 0.01) in dentists' prescribing rate in the intervention group relative to the control group. Intervention subgroup analyses found a 6.1% reduction in the antibiotic prescribing rate of dentists who had received the written behaviour change message relative to dentists who had not (95% CI -10.4% to -1.9%; p = 0.01). There was no significant between-group difference in the prescribing rate of dentists who received a health board comparator relative to those who did not (-4.3%; 95% CI -8.6% to 0.1%; p = 0.06), nor between dentists who received A&F at 0 and 6 mo relative to those who received A&F at 0, 6, and 9 mo (0.02%; 95% CI -4.2% to 4.2%; p = 0.99). The key limitations relate to the use of routinely collected datasets which did not allow evaluation of any effects on inappropriate prescribing. CONCLUSIONS:A&F derived from routinely collected datasets led to a significant reduction in the antibiotic prescribing rate of dentists. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49204710.

Project description:Background:As part of their professional role, healthcare providers enact multiple competing goal-directed behaviours in time-constrained environments. Better understanding healthcare providers' motivation to engage in the pursuit of particular goals may help inform the development of implementation interventions. We investigated healthcare providers' pursuit of multiple goals as part of a trial evaluating the effectiveness of an audit and feedback intervention in supporting appropriate adjustment of high-risk medication prescribing by physicians working in nursing homes. Our objectives were to determine whether goal priority and constructs from Social Cognitive Theory (self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and descriptive norms) predicted intention to adjust prescribing of multiple high-risk medications and to investigate how physicians in nursing homes prioritise their goals related to high-risk medication prescribing. Methods:Physicians in Ontario, Canada, who signed up for and accessed the audit and feedback report were invited to complete a questionnaire assessing goal priority, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, descriptive norms, and intention in relation to the three targeted behaviours (adjusting prescribing of antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, and antidepressants) and a control behaviour (adjusting statin prescribing). We conducted multiple linear regression analyses to identify predictors of intention. We also conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews to investigate how physicians in nursing homes prioritise their goals in relation to appropriately adjusting prescribing of the medications included in the report: analysis was informed by the framework analysis method. Results:Thirty-three of 89 (37%) physicians completed the questionnaire. Goal priority was the only significant predictor of intention for each medication type; the greater a priority it was for physicians to appropriately adjust their prescribing, the stronger was their intention to do so. Across five interviews, physicians reported prioritising adjustment of antipsychotic prescribing specifically. This was influenced by negative media coverage of antipsychotic prescribing in nursing homes, the provincial government's mandate to address antipsychotic prescribing, and by the deprescribing initiatives or best practice routines in place in their nursing homes. Conclusions:Goal priority predicted nursing home physicians' intention to adjust prescribing. Targeting goal priority through implementation interventions therefore has the potential to influence behaviour via increased motivation. Implementation intervention developers should consider the external factors that may drive physicians' prioritization.

Project description:BackgroundMuch research worldwide is focussed on cost containment and better adherence to guidelines in healthcare. The research focussing on professional behaviour is often performed in a well-controlled research setting. In this study a large-scale implementation of a peer review strategy was tested on both test ordering and prescribing behaviour in primary care in the normal quality improvement setting.MethodsWe planned a cluster-RCT in existing local quality improvement collaboratives (LQICs) in primary care. The study ran from January 2008 to January 2011. LQICs were randomly assigned to one of two trial arms, with each arm receiving the same intervention of audit and feedback combined with peer review. Both arms were offered five different clinical topics and acted as blind controls for the other arm. The differences in test ordering rates and prescribing rates between both arms were analysed in an intention-to-treat pre-post analysis and a per-protocol analysis.ResultsTwenty-one LQIC groups, including 197 GPs working in 88 practices, entered the trial. The intention-to-treat analysis did not show a difference in the changes in test ordering or prescribing performance between intervention and control groups. The per-protocol analysis showed positive results for half of the clinical topics. The increase in total tests ordered was 3% in the intervention arm and 15% in the control arm. For prescribing the increase in prescriptions was 20% in the intervention arm and 66% in the control group. It was observed that the groups with the highest baseline test ordering and prescription volumes showed the largest improvements.ConclusionsOur study shows that the results from earlier work could not be confirmed by our attempt to implement the strategy in the field. We did not see a decrease in the volumes of tests ordered or of the drugs prescribed but were able to show a lesser increase instead. Implementing the peer review with audit and feedback proved to be not feasible in primary care in the Netherlands.Trial registrationThis trial was registered at the Dutch trial register under number ISRCTN40008171 on August 7th 2007.

Project description:BackgroundInappropriate prescribing of antimicrobials is a significant threat to global public health. In England, approximately 5% of all antimicrobial items are prescribed by dentists, despite the limited indications for their use in the treatment of oral infections in published clinical guidelines. The objective of this study was to survey antimicrobial prescribing by dental practitioners in North East England and Cumbria, identify educational and training needs and develop a self-assessment tool that can be used for Continued Professional Development by individual practitioners.MethodsDuring October 2016, 275 dental practitioners used a standardised form to record anonymous information about patients who had been prescribed antimicrobials. Clinical information and prescribing details were compared against clinical guidelines published by the Faculty of General Dental Practitioners UK.ResultsDental practitioners provided data on 1893 antimicrobial prescriptions. There was documented evidence of systemic spread, such as pyrexia in 18% of patients. Dentists recorded patients' pain (91.1% of patients), local lymph gland involvement (41.5%) gross diffuse swelling (55.5%) dysphagia (7.2%) and trismus (13.6%). Reasons for prescribing antimicrobials included patient expectations (25.8%), patient preference (24.8%), time pressures (10.9%), and patients uncooperative with other treatments (10.4%). The most commonly prescribed antimicrobials were amoxicillin, accounting for 61.2% of prescriptions, followed by metronidazole (29.9%). Most prescriptions for amoxicillin were for either 5 days (66.8%) or 7 days (29.6%) and most prescriptions for metronidazole were for a 5-day course (65.2%) or 7-day (18.6%) course.ConclusionIn most cases, when an antimicrobial was prescribed, practitioners used the correct choice of agents and usually prescribed these at the correct dose. However, some evidence of suboptimal prescribing practices when compared to the Faculty of General Dental Practitioner guidelines were identified. The audit has identified training needs across the region and aided the development of Continued Professional Development sessions. Further work to identify barriers and facilitators for improving antimicrobial prescribing and determining appropriate methods to improve clinical practice are required.

Project description:Audit and feedback (AF) interventions that leverage routine administrative data offer a scalable and relatively low-cost method to improve processes of care. AF interventions are usually designed to highlight discrepancies between desired and actual performance and to encourage recipients to act to address such discrepancies. Comparing to a regional average is a common approach, but more recipients would have a discrepancy if compared to a higher-than-average level of performance. In addition, how recipients perceive and respond to discrepancies may depend on how the feedback itself is framed. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of different comparators and framing in feedback on high-risk prescribing in nursing homes.This is a pragmatic, 2?×?2 factorial, cluster-randomized controlled trial testing variations in the comparator and framing on the effectiveness of quarterly AF in changing high-risk prescribing in nursing homes in Ontario, Canada. We grouped homes that share physicians into clusters and randomized these clusters into the four experimental conditions. Outcomes will be assessed after 6 months; all primary analyses will be by intention-to-treat. The primary outcome (monthly number of high-risk medications received by each patient) will be analysed using a general linear mixed effects regression model. We will present both four-arm and factorial analyses. With 160 clusters and an average of 350 beds per cluster, assuming no interaction and similar effects for each intervention, we anticipate 90% power to detect an absolute mean difference of 0.3 high-risk medications prescribed. A mixed-methods process evaluation will explore potential mechanisms underlying the observed effects, exploring targeted constructs including intention, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, descriptive norms, and goal prioritization. An economic analysis will examine cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the publicly funded health care system.This protocol describes the rationale and methodology of a trial testing manipulations of theory-informed components of an audit and feedback intervention to determine how to improve an existing intervention and provide generalizable insights for implementation science.NCT02979964.

Project description:BackgroundAudit and feedback is a common intervention for supporting clinical behaviour change. Increasingly, health data are available in electronic format. Yet, little is known regarding if and how electronic audit and feedback (e-A&F) improves quality of care in practice.ObjectiveThe study aimed to assess the effectiveness of e-A&F interventions in a primary care and hospital context and to identify theoretical mechanisms of behaviour change underlying these interventions.MethodsIn August 2016, we searched five electronic databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE via Ovid, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for published randomised controlled trials. We included studies that evaluated e-A&F interventions, defined as a summary of clinical performance delivered through an interactive computer interface to healthcare providers. Data on feedback characteristics, underlying theoretical domains, effect size and risk of bias were extracted by two independent review authors, who determined the domains within the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We performed a meta-analysis of e-A&F effectiveness, and a narrative analysis of the nature and patterns of TDF domains and potential links with the intervention effect.ResultsWe included seven studies comprising of 81,700 patients being cared for by 329 healthcare professionals/primary care facilities. Given the extremely high heterogeneity of the e-A&F interventions and five studies having a medium or high risk of bias, the average effect was deemed unreliable. Only two studies explicitly used theory to guide intervention design. The most frequent theoretical domains targeted by the e-A&F interventions included 'knowledge', 'social influences', 'goals' and 'behaviour regulation', with each intervention targeting a combination of at least three. None of the interventions addressed the domains 'social/professional role and identity' or 'emotion'. Analyses identified the number of different domains coded in control arm to have the biggest role in heterogeneity in e-A&F effect size.ConclusionsGiven the high heterogeneity of identified studies, the effects of e-A&F were found to be highly variable. Additionally, e-A&F interventions tend to implicitly target only a fraction of known theoretical domains, even after omitting domains presumed not to be linked to e-A&F. Also, little evaluation of comparative effectiveness across trial arms was conducted. Future research should seek to further unpack the theoretical domains essential for effective e-A&F in order to better support strategic individual and team goals.

Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate the effectiveness of different strategies involving delayed antibiotic prescription for acute respiratory tract infections.DesignOpen, pragmatic, parallel group, factorial, randomised controlled trial.SettingPrimary care in the United Kingdom.Patients889 patients aged 3 years and over with acute respiratory tract infection, recruited between 3 March 2010 and 28 March 2012 by 53 health professionals in 25 practices.InterventionsPatients judged not to need immediate antibiotics were randomised to undergo four strategies of delayed prescription: recontact for a prescription, post-dated prescription, collection of the prescription, and be given the prescription (patient led). During the trial, a strategy of no antibiotic prescription was added as another randomised comparison. Analysis was intention to treat.Main outcome measuresMean symptom severity (0-6 scale) at days 2-4 (primary outcome), antibiotic use, and patients' beliefs in the effectiveness of antibiotic use. Secondary analysis included comparison with immediate use of antibiotics.ResultsMean symptom severity had minimal differences between the strategies involving no prescription and delayed prescription (recontact, post-date, collection, patient led; 1.62, 1.60, 1.82, 1.68, 1.75, respectively; likelihood ratio test χ(2) 2.61, P=0.625). Duration of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse also did not differ between no prescription and delayed prescription strategies combined (median 3 days v 4 days; 4.29, P=0.368). There were modest and non-significant differences in patients very satisfied with the consultation between the randomised groups (79%, 74%, 80%, 88%, 89%, respectively; likelihood ratio test χ(2) 2.38, P=0.667), belief in antibiotics (71%, 74%, 73%, 72%, 66%; 1.62, P=0.805), or antibiotic use (26%, 37%, 37%, 33%, 39%; 4.96, P=0.292). By contrast, most patients given immediate antibiotics used antibiotics (97%) and strongly believed in them (93%), but with no benefit for symptom severity (score 1.76) or duration (median 4 days).ConclusionStrategies of no prescription or delayed antibiotic prescription result in fewer than 40% of patients using antibiotics, and are associated with less strong beliefs in antibiotics, and similar symptomatic outcomes to immediate prescription. If clear advice is given to patients, there is probably little to choose between the different strategies of delayed prescription.Trial registrationISRCTN38551726.

Dataset Information

Evaluating an audit and feedback intervention for reducing antibiotic prescribing behaviour in general dental practice (the RAPiD trial): a partial factorial cluster randomised trial protocol.

Publications

Evaluating an audit and feedback intervention for reducing antibiotic prescribing behaviour in general dental practice (the RAPiD trial): a partial factorial cluster randomised trial protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets