Dataset Information

Resident Physician Prescribing Variability Demonstrates Need for Antimicrobial Stewardship in Continuity Clinic: A Pilot Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Inappropriate antimicrobial use is common in the outpatient setting but often goes unaddressed by stewardship education. Residents might benefit from directed stewardship education.

Objective

We conducted a needs assessment of resident knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding antibiotic use and stewardship in outpatient continuity clinics.

Methods

Internal medicine (IM) residents with continuity clinic at Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System were eligible. Antimicrobial prescriptions and number of visits were extracted from the Computerized Patient Record System (July 1, 2017-March 31, 2018). Antimicrobial rate (prescriptions per 1000 visits) was calculated for each resident. Results from a resident survey that included demographics, attitudes, and case-based multiple-choice knowledge questions were linked by unique identifier to antimicrobial rate.

Results

Prescription and visit data were available for 37 residents. Mean monthly antimicrobial rate was 51 prescriptions per 1000 visits (range 8-239). Surveys were completed by 19 residents (51%). Respondents were 32% female, 32% interns, and 11% international medical graduates. An online resource was most commonly used for prescribing guidance, whereas lectures and small group sessions for residents were rated as the most helpful educational modalities. Many respondents reported being unprepared to perform basic tasks related to antimicrobial stewardship. Median percentage correct was 57% of case-based knowledge questions (interquartile range 50%-71%).

Conclusions

Antimicrobial rates among IM residents at a VA outpatient continuity clinic are low and vary by provider. Residents agree with key antimicrobial stewardship concepts but lack preparation in tasks related to antimicrobial stewardship. Knowledge regarding antimicrobial prescribing was low.

SUBMITTER: Andrews S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7450730 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness and acceptability of antimicrobial stewardship-focused implementation strategies on inpatient fluoroquinolones.MethodsStewardship champions at 15 hospitals were surveyed regarding the use and acceptability of strategies to improve fluoroquinolone prescribing. Antibiotic days of therapy (DOT) per 1,000 days present (DP) for sites with and without prospective audit and feedback (PAF) and/or prior approval were compared.ResultsAmong all of the sites, 60% had PAF or prior approval implemented for fluoroquinolones. Compared to sites using neither strategy (64.2 ± 34.4 DOT/DP), fluoroquinolone prescribing rates were lower for sites that employed PAF and/or prior approval (35.5 ± 9.8; P = .03) and decreased from 2017 to 2018 (P < .001). This decrease occurred without an increase in advanced-generation cephalosporins. Total antibiotic rates were 13% lower for sites with PAF and/or prior approval, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .20). Sites reporting that PAF and/or prior approval were "completely" accepted had lower fluoroquinolone rates than sites where it was "moderately" accepted (34.2 ± 5.7 vs 48.7 ± 4.5; P < .01). Sites reported that clinical pathways and/or local guidelines (93%), prior approval (93%), and order forms (80%) "would" or "may" be effective in improving fluoroquinolone use. Although most sites (73%) indicated that requiring infectious disease consults would or may be effective in improving fluoroquinolones, 87% perceived implementation to be difficult.ConclusionsPAF and prior approval implementation strategies focused on fluoroquinolones were associated with significantly lower fluoroquinolone prescribing rates and nonsignificant decreases in total antibiotic use, suggesting limited evidence for class substitution. The association of acceptability of strategies with lower rates highlights the importance of culture. These results may indicate increased acceptability of implementation strategies and/or sensitivity to FDA warnings.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Although Internal Medicine year-end resident clinic handoffs affect numerous patients, little research has described patients' perspectives of the experience. OBJECTIVE: To describe patients' perceptions of positive and negative experiences pertaining to the year-end clinic handoff; to rate patient satisfaction with aspects of the clinic handoff and identify whether or not patients could name their new physicians. DESIGN: Qualitative study design using semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: High-risk patients who underwent a year-end clinic handoff in July 2011. MEASUREMENTS: Three months post-handoff, telephone interviews were conducted with patients to elicit their perceptions of positive and negative experiences. An initial coding classification was developed and applied to transcripts. Patients were also asked to name their primary care physician (PCP) and rate their satisfaction with the handoff. RESULTS: In all, 103 telephone interviews were completed. Patient experiences regarding clinic handoffs were categorized into four themes: (1) doctor-patient relationships (i.e. difficulty building rapport); (2) clinic logistics (i.e. difficulty rescheduling appointments); (3) process of the care transition (i.e. patient unaware transition occurred); and (4) patient safety-related issues (i.e. missed tests). Only 59 % of patients could correctly name their new PCP. Patients who reported that they were informed of the clinic transition by letter or by telephone call from their new PCP were more likely to correctly name them (65 % vs. 32 % p?=?0.007), report that their new doctor assumed care for them immediately (81 % [68/84] vs. 53 % [10/19], p?=?0.009) and report satisfaction with communication between their old and new doctors (80 % [67/84] vs. 58 % [11/19], p?=?0.04). Patients reported positive experiences such as learning more about their new physician through personal sharing, which helped them build rapport. Patients who reported being aware of the medical education mission of the clinic tended to be more understanding of the handoff process. CONCLUSIONS: Patients face unique challenges during year-end clinic handoffs and provide insights into areas of improvement for a patient-centered handoff.

Project description:BackgroundInformation about the feasibility, barriers and facilitators of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in residential aged care facilities (RACFs) has been scant. Exploring the prevailing perceptions and attitudes of key healthcare providers towards antibiotic prescribing behaviour, antibiotic resistance and AMS in the RACF setting is imperative to guide AMS interventions.MethodsSemi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with key RACF healthcare providers until saturation of themes occurred. Participants were recruited using purposive and snowball sampling. The framework approach was applied for data analysis.ResultsA total of 40 nurses, 15 general practitioners (GPs) and 6 pharmacists from 12 RACFs were recruited. Five major themes emerged; perceptions of current antibiotic prescribing behaviour, perceptions of antibiotic resistance, attitude towards and understanding of AMS, perceived barriers to and facilitators of AMS implementation, and feasible AMS interventions. A higher proportion of GPs and pharmacists compared with nurses felt there was over-prescribing of antibiotics in the RACF setting. Antibiotic resistance was generally perceived as an issue for infection control rather than impacting clinical decisions. All key stakeholders were supportive of AMS implementation in RACFs; however, they recognized barriers related to workload and logistical issues. A range of practical AMS interventions were identified, with nursing-based education, aged-care specific antibiotic guidelines and regular antibiotic surveillance deemed most useful and feasible.ConclusionsAreas of antibiotic over-prescribing have been identified from different healthcare providers' perspectives. However, concern about the clinical impact of antibiotic resistance was generally lacking. Importantly, information gathered about feasibility, barriers and facilitators of various AMS interventions will provide important insights to guide development of AMS programs in the RACF setting.