Dataset Information

Effect of Financially Punished Audit and Feedback in a Pediatric Setting in China, within an Antimicrobial Stewardship Program, and as Part of an International Accreditation Process.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Prior authorization, audit and feedback, and pay for performance are the three core "active" strategies of antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP), yet little is known about the individual or combined benefits of such programs, particularly in a pediatric setting. OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to compare these core ASP strategies and determine the incremental effect of financially punished audit and feedback. METHODS:During the journey to the Joint Commission International accreditation, a tertiary pediatric medical center performed two different hospital-wide stewardship interventions in succession. The first stage without formalized ASPs served as pre-intervention period, January 2011 to April 2011. The ASP used prior authorization alone during the first-intervention period, May 2011 to September 2011. In October 2011, financially punished audit and feedback was introduced, marking the start of the second-intervention period, October 2011 to November 2012. We compared the differences of the change in monthly average use of antibiotics and expenditure on antibiotics before and after the ASP changes by using interrupted time series via dynamic regression. The main end points included the proportions of antibiotic prescriptions and expenditure on antibacterial relative to all medications. RESULTS:Before the second-intervention period, neither the proportion of antibiotic prescriptions nor the proportion of expenditure on antibiotics declined significantly in both ambulatory and inpatient settings. However, after the introduction of financially punished audit and feedback, the proportion of both antibiotic prescriptions (??=?-6.269, P?

SUBMITTER: Gong S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4870519 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of Financially Punished Audit and Feedback in a Pediatric Setting in China, within an Antimicrobial Stewardship Program, and as Part of an International Accreditation Process.

Gong Sitang S Qiu Xiu X Song Yanyan Y Sun Xin X He Yanling Y Chen Yilu Y Li Minqing M Luo Rui R He Liya L Wei Qing Q Shen Songying S Liu Yu Y Zhang Lian L Zhou Wei W Huang Ping P Mai Jianning J Liu Li L Xu Yi Y Liang Huiying H Xia Huimin H

Frontiers in public health 20160518

<h4>Background</h4>Prior authorization, audit and feedback, and pay for performance are the three core "active" strategies of antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP), yet little is known about the individual or combined benefits of such programs, particularly in a pediatric setting.<h4>Objectives</h4>The aim of this study was to compare these core ASP strategies and determine the incremental effect of financially punished audit and feedback.<h4>Methods</h4>During the journey to the Joint Commiss ...[more]

PMID: 27242991

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAs trauma systems mature, they are expected to improve patient care, reduce in-hospital complications and optimize outcomes. Qatar has a single trauma center, at the Hamad General Hospital, which serves as the hub for the trauma system that was verified as a level 1 trauma system by the Accreditation Canada International Distinction program in 2014. We hypothesized that this international accreditation was a major step, in the maturation process of the Qatar trauma system, that has positively impacted patient care, reduced complications and improved outcomes of trauma patients in such a rapidly developing country.MethodsA retrospective analysis of data was conducted for all trauma patients who were admitted between 2010 and 2018. Data were obtained from the level 1 trauma center registry at Hamad Medical Corporation. Patients were divided into Group 1- pre-accreditation (admitted from January 2010 to October 2014) and Group 2- post-accreditation (admitted from November 2014 to December 2018). Patients' characteristics and in-hospital outcomes were analyzed and compared. Data included patients' demographics; injury types, mechanism and injury severity scores, interventions, hospital stay, complications and mortality (pre-hospital and in-hospital). Time series analysis for mortality was performed using expert modeler.ResultsData from a total of 15,864 patients was collected and analyzed. Group 2 patients had more severe injuries in comparison to Group 1 (p<0.05). However, Group 2, had a lower complication rate (ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP)) and a shorter mean hospital length of stay (p<0.05). The overall mortality was 8%. In Group 2; the pre-hospital mortality was higher (52% vs. 41%, p = 0.001), while in-hospital mortality was lower (48% vs. 59%) compared to Group 1 (p = 0.001).ConclusionsThe international recognition and accreditation of the trauma center in 2014 was the key factor in the maturation of the trauma system that improved the in-hospital outcomes. Accreditation also brought other benefits including a reduction in VAP and hospital length of stay. However, further studies are required to explore the maturation process of all individual components of the trauma system including the prehospital setting.

Project description:Audit and feedback to physicians is a commonly used quality improvement strategy, but its optimal design is unknown. This trial tested the effects of a theory-informed worksheet to facilitate goal setting and action planning, appended to feedback reports on chronic disease management, compared to feedback reports provided without these worksheets.A two-arm pragmatic cluster randomized trial was conducted, with allocation at the level of primary care clinics. Participants were family physicians who contributed data from their electronic medical records. The 'usual feedback' arm received feedback every six months for two years regarding the proportion of their patients meeting quality targets for diabetes and/or ischemic heart disease. The intervention arm received these same reports plus a worksheet designed to facilitate goal setting and action plan development in response to the feedback reports. Blood pressure (BP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) values were compared after two years as the primary outcomes. Process outcomes measured the proportion of guideline-recommended actions (e.g., testing and prescribing) conducted within the appropriate timeframe. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed.Outcomes were similar across groups at baseline. Final analysis included 20 physicians from seven clinics and 1,832 patients in the intervention arm (15% loss to follow up) and 29 physicians from seven clinics and 2,223 patients in the usual feedback arm (10% loss to follow up). Ten of 20 physicians completed the worksheet at least once during the study. Mean BP was 128/72 in the feedback plus worksheet arm and 128/73 in the feedback alone arm, while LDL was 2.1 and 2.0, respectively. Thus, no significant differences were observed across groups in the primary outcomes, but mean haemoglobin A1c was lower in the feedback plus worksheet arm (7.2% versus 7.4%, p<0.001). Improvements in both arms were noted over time for one-half of the process outcomes.Appending a theory-informed goal setting and action planning worksheet to an externally produced audit and feedback intervention did not lead to improvements in patient outcomes. The results may be explained in part by passive dissemination of the worksheet leading to inadequate engagement with the intervention.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00996645.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with increased antimicrobial use despite low rates of bacterial co-infection. Prospective audit and feedback is recommended to optimise antibiotic prescribing, but high-quality evidence supporting its use for COVID-19 is absent. We aimed to study the efficacy and safety of prospective audit and feedback in patients admitted to hospital for the treatment of COVID-19.MethodsCOVASP was a prospective, pragmatic, non-inferiority, small-unit, cluster-randomised trial comparing prospective audit and feedback plus standard of care with standard of care alone in adults admitted to three hospitals in Edmonton, AB, Canada, with COVID-19 pneumonia. All patients aged at least 18 years who were admitted from the community to a designated study bed with microbiologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in the preceding 14 days were included if they had an oxygen saturation of 94% or lower on room air, required supplemental oxygen, or had chest-imaging findings compatible with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients were excluded if they were transferred in from another acute care centre, enrolled in another clinical trial that involved antibiotic therapy, expected to progress to palliative care or death within 48 h of hospital admission, or managed by any member of the research team within 30 days of enrolment. COVID-19 unit and critical care unit beds were stratified and randomly assigned (1:1) to the prospective audit and feedback plus standard of care group or the standard of care group. Patients were masked to their bed assignment but the attending physician and study team were not. The primary outcome was clinical status on postadmission day 15, measured using a seven-point ordinal scale. We used a non-inferiority margin of 0·5. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04896866, and is now closed.FindingsBetween March 1 and Oct 29, 2021, 1411 patients were screened and 886 were enrolled: 457 into the prospective audit and feedback plus standard of care group, of whom 429 completed the study, and 429 into the standard of care group, of whom 404 completed the study. Baseline characteristics were similar for both groups, with an overall mean age of 56·7 years (SD 17·3) and a median baseline ordinal scale of 4·0 (IQR 4·0-5·0). 301 audit and feedback events were recorded in the intervention group and 215 recommendations were made, of which 181 (84%) were accepted. Despite lower antibiotic use in the intervention group than in the control group (length of therapy 364·9 vs 384·2 days per 1000 patient days), clinical status at postadmission day 15 was non-inferior (median ordinal score 2·0 [IQR 2·0-3·0] vs 2·0 [IQR 2·0-4·0]; p=0·37, Mann-Whitney U test). Neutropenia was uncommon in both the intervention group (13 [3%] of 420 patients) and the control group (20 [5%] of 396 patients), and acute kidney injury occurred at a similar rate in both groups (74 [18%] of 421 patients in the intervention group and 76 [19%] of 399 patients in the control group). No intervention-related deaths were recorded.InterpretationThis cluster-randomised clinical trial shows that prospective audit and feedback is safe and effective in optimising and reducing antibiotic use in adults admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Despite many competing priorities during the COVID-19 pandemic, antimicrobial stewardship should remain a priority to mitigate the overuse of antibiotics in this population.FundingNone.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Audit and feedback to physicians is commonly used alone or as part of multifaceted interventions. While it can play an important role in quality improvement, the optimal design of audit and feedback is unknown. This study explores how feedback can be improved to increase acceptability and usability in primary care. The trial seeks to determine whether a theory-informed worksheet appended to feedback reports can help family physicians improve quality of care for their patients with diabetes and/or ischemic heart disease. METHODS:Two-arm cluster trial was conducted with participating primary care practices allocated using minimization to simple feedback or enhanced feedback group. The simple feedback group receives performance feedback reports every six months for two years regarding the proportion of their patients with diabetes and/or ischemic heart disease who are meeting quality targets. The enhanced feedback group receives these same reports as well as a theory-informed worksheet designed to facilitate goal setting and action plan development in response to the feedback reports. Participants are family physicians from across Ontario who use electronic medical records; data for rostered patients are used to produce the feedback reports and for analysis. OUTCOMES:The primary disease outcomes are the blood pressure (BP), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) levels. The primary process measure is a composite score indicating the number of recommended activities (e.g., tests and prescriptions) conducted by the family physicians for their patients with diabetes and/or ischemic heart disease within the appropriate timeframe. Secondary outcomes are the proportion of patients whose results meet targets for glucose, LDL, and BP as well as the percent of patients receiving relevant prescriptions. A qualitative process evaluation using semi-structured interviews will explore perceived barriers to behaviour change in response to feedback reports and preferences with regard to feedback design. ANALYSIS:Intention-to-treat approach will be used to analyze the trial. Analysis will be performed on patient-level variables using generalized estimating equation models to adjust for covariates and account for the clustered nature of the data. The trial is powered to show small, but clinically important differences of 7 mmHG in systolic BP and 0.32 mmol/L in LDL. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00996645.

Dataset Information

Effect of Financially Punished Audit and Feedback in a Pediatric Setting in China, within an Antimicrobial Stewardship Program, and as Part of an International Accreditation Process.

Publications

Effect of Financially Punished Audit and Feedback in a Pediatric Setting in China, within an Antimicrobial Stewardship Program, and as Part of an International Accreditation Process.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets