Dataset Information

The determinants of antimicrobial prescribing among hospital doctors in England: a framework to inform tailored stewardship interventions.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

Little is known about the determinants of antimicrobial prescribing behaviour (APB), how they vary between hospital prescribers or the mechanism by which interventions are effective. Yet, interventions based on a sound theoretical understanding of APB are more likely to be successful in changing outcomes. This study sought to quantify the potential determinants of APB among hospital doctors in south-west England.

Methods

This multicentre, quantitative study employed a closed answer questionnaire to garner hospital doctors' views on factors influencing their APB. Underlying constructs within the data were identified using exploratory factor analysis and subsequent pairwise comparisons assessed for variance between groups of prescribers.

Results

The questionnaire was completed by 301 doctors across four centres (response rate ? 74%) and three key factors were identified: autonomy, guidelines adherence and antibiotic awareness. The internal consistency for the questionnaire scale and for each factor subscale was good (? ? 0.7). Subgroup analysis identified significant differences between groups of prescribers: autonomy scores increased with grade until at the specialist trainee level (P ? 0.009), foundation doctors scored higher for guidelines adherence than consultants (P = 0.004) and specialist trainees (P = 0.003) and United Kingdom trained doctors scored higher than those trained abroad for antibiotic awareness (P < 0.0005). Scores did not vary significantly between doctors from different centres.

Conclusion

Autonomy, guidelines adherence and antibiotic awareness were identified as important factors relevant to APB, which vary with experience and training. A theoretical framework is offered to facilitate development of more effective, tailored interventions to change APBs.

SUBMITTER: Parker HM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4972159 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The determinants of antimicrobial prescribing among hospital doctors in England: a framework to inform tailored stewardship interventions.

Parker Hazel M HM Mattick Karen K

British journal of clinical pharmacology 20160518 2

<h4>Aim</h4>Little is known about the determinants of antimicrobial prescribing behaviour (APB), how they vary between hospital prescribers or the mechanism by which interventions are effective. Yet, interventions based on a sound theoretical understanding of APB are more likely to be successful in changing outcomes. This study sought to quantify the potential determinants of APB among hospital doctors in south-west England.<h4>Methods</h4>This multicentre, quantitative study employed a closed a ...[more]

PMID: 27038778

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAs meropenem is a restricted antimicrobial, lessons learned from its real-life usage will be applicable to antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) more generally.ObjectivesTo retrospectively evaluate meropenem usage at our institution to identify targets for AMS interventions.MethodsPatients receiving meropenem documented with an 'alert antimicrobial' form at two tertiary care UK hospitals were identified retrospectively. Clinical records and microbiology results were reviewed.ResultsA total of 107 adult inpatients receiving meropenem were identified. This was first-line in 47% and escalation therapy in 53%. Source control was required in 28% of cases after escalation, for predictable reasons. Those ultimately requiring source control had received more prior antimicrobial agents than those who did not (P = 0.03). Meropenem was rationalized in 24% of cases (after median 4 days). Positive microbiology enabled rationalization (OR 12.3, 95% CI 2.7-55.5, P = 0.001) but rates of appropriate sampling varied. In cases with positive microbiology where meropenem was not rationalized, continuation was retrospectively considered clinically and microbiologically necessary in 8/40 cases (0/17 empirical first-line usage). Rationalization was more likely when meropenem susceptibility was not released on the microbiology report (OR 5.2, 95% CI 1.3-20.2, P = 0.02). Input from an infection specialist was associated with a reduced duration of meropenem therapy (P < 0.0001). Early review by an infection specialist has the potential to further facilitate rationalization.ConclusionsIn real-life clinical practice, core aspects of infection management remain tractable targets for AMS interventions: microbiological sampling, source control and infection specialist input. Further targets include supporting rationalization to less familiar carbapenem-sparing antimicrobials, restricting first-line meropenem usage and selectively reporting meropenem susceptibility.

Project description:ImportanceThe feasibility of core Infectious Diseases Society of America-recommended antimicrobial stewardship interventions in community hospitals is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine the feasibility and results of implementing 2 core stewardship intervention strategies in community hospitals.Design, setting, and participantsThree-stage, multicenter, prospective nonrandomized clinical trial with crossover design. The setting was 4 community hospitals in North Carolina (median bed size, 305; range, 102-425). Participants were all patients receiving targeted study antibacterial agents or alternative, nonstudy antibacterial agents. The study dates were October 2014 through October 2015. All statistical analyses were completed as of October 2016.InterventionsTwo antimicrobial stewardship strategies targeted vancomycin hydrochloride, piperacillin-tazobactam, and the antipseudomonal carbapenems on formulary at the study hospitals: (1) modified preauthorization (PA), in which the prescriber had to receive pharmacist approval for continued use of the antibiotic after the first dose, and (2) postprescription audit and review (PPR), in which the pharmacist would engage the prescriber about antibiotic appropriateness after 72 hours of therapy. Two hospitals performed modified PA for 6 months, then PPR for 6 months after a 1-month washout. The other 2 hospitals performed the reverse.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the feasibility of implementing the interventions, determined by (1) approval by hospital administration and committees at each study hospital; (2) completion of pharmacist training; (3) initiation and implementation as determined by number, type, and outcomes of interventions performed; and (4) time required for interventions. Secondary outcomes included antimicrobial use (days of therapy) compared with matched historical periods and length of hospitalization.ResultsA total of 2692 patients (median age, 65 years; interquartile range, 53-76 years) underwent a study intervention; 1413 (52.5%) were female, 1323 (49.1%) were white, and 1047 (38.9%) were African American. Intervention approvals took a median of 95 days (range, 56-119 days); during these discussions, strict PA was deemed not feasible. Instead, the modified PA intervention was used throughout the study. Pharmacists performed 1456 modified PA interventions (median per hospital, 350 [range, 129-628]) and 1236 PPR interventions (median per hospital, 298 [range, 273-366]). Study antimicrobials were determined to be inappropriate 2 times as often during the PPR period (41.0% [435 of 1060] vs 20.4% [253 of 1243]; P < .001). Pharmacists recommended dose change more often during the modified PA intervention (15.9% [232 of 1456] vs 9.6% [119 of 1236]; P < .001) and de-escalation during PPR (29.1% [360 of 1236] vs 13.0% [190 of 1456]; P < .001). The median time dedicated to the stewardship interventions varied by hospital (range of median hours per week, 5-19). Overall antibiotic use decreased during PPR compared with historical controls (mean [SD] days of therapy per 1000 patient-days, 925.2 [109.8] vs 965.3 [109.4]; mean difference, -40.1; 95% CI, -71.7 to -8.6), but not during modified PA (mean [SD] days of therapy per 1000 patient-days, 931.0 [102.0] vs 926.6 [89.7]; mean difference, 4.4; 95% CI, -55.8 to 64.7).Conclusions and relevanceStrict PA was not feasible in the study hospitals. In contrast, PPR was a feasible and effective strategy for antimicrobial stewardship in settings with limited resources and expertise.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02212808.

Dataset Information

The determinants of antimicrobial prescribing among hospital doctors in England: a framework to inform tailored stewardship interventions.

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

The determinants of antimicrobial prescribing among hospital doctors in England: a framework to inform tailored stewardship interventions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure