Dataset Information

Impact of a multifaceted intervention to improve antibiotic prescribing: a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This study sought to assess the effectiveness and return on investment (ROI) of a multifaceted intervention aimed at improving antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections in primary care.

Design

Large-sized, two-arm, open-label, pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial.

Setting

All primary care physicians working for the Spanish National Health Service (NHS) in Galicia (region in north-west Spain).

Participants

The seven spatial clusters were distributed by unequal randomisation (3:4) of the intervention and control groups. A total of 1217 physicians (1.30 million patients) were recruited from intervention clusters and 1393 physicians (1.46 million patients) from control clusters.

Interventions

One-hour educational outreach visits tailored to training needs identified in a previous study; an online course integrated in practice accreditation; and a clinical decision support system.

Main outcome measures

Changes in the ESAC (European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption) quality indicators for outpatient antibiotic use. We used generalised linear mixed and conducted a ROI analysis to ascertain the overall cost savings.

Results

Median follow-up was 19?months. The adjusted effect on overall antibiotic prescribing attributable to the intervention was -?4.2% (95% CI: -?5.3% to -?3.2%), with this being more pronounced for penicillins -?6.5 (95% CI: -?7.9% to -?5.2%) and for the ratio of consumption of broad- to narrow-spectrum penicillins, cephalosporins, and macrolides -?9.0% (95% CI: -?14.0 to -?4.1%). The cost of the intervention was €87 per physician. Direct savings per physician attributable to the reduction in antibiotic prescriptions was €311 for the NHS and €573 for patient contributions, with an ROI of €2.57 and €5.59 respectively.

Conclusions

Interventions designed on the basis of gaps in physicians' knowledge of and attitudes to misprescription can improve antibiotic prescribing and yield important direct cost savings.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24158380 . Registered 5 February 2009.

SUBMITTER: Figueiras A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7722452 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of a multifaceted intervention to improve antibiotic prescribing: a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial.

Figueiras Adolfo A López-Vázquez Paula P Gonzalez-Gonzalez Cristian C Vázquez-Lago Juan Manuel JM Piñeiro-Lamas María M López-Durán Ana A Sánchez Coro C Herdeiro María Teresa MT Zapata-Cachafeiro Maruxa M

Antimicrobial resistance and infection control 20201207 1

<h4>Objectives</h4>This study sought to assess the effectiveness and return on investment (ROI) of a multifaceted intervention aimed at improving antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections in primary care.<h4>Design</h4>Large-sized, two-arm, open-label, pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial.<h4>Setting</h4>All primary care physicians working for the Spanish National Health Service (NHS) in Galicia (region in north-west Spain).<h4>Participants</h4>The seven spatial clusters ...[more]

PMID: 33287881

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionUp to 80% of patients with respiratory tract infections (RTI) attending healthcare facilities in rural areas of China are prescribed antibiotics, many of which are unnecessary. Since 2009, China has implemented several policies to try to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use; however, antibiotic prescribing remains high in rural health facilities.Methods and analysisA cluster randomised controlled trial will be carried out to estimate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a complex intervention in reducing antibiotic prescribing at township health centres in Anhui Province, China. 40 Township health centres will be randomised at a 1:1 ratio to the intervention or usual care arms. In the intervention group, practitioners will receive an intervention comprising: (1) training to support appropriate antibiotic prescribing for RTI, (2) a computer-based treatment decision support system, (3) virtual peer support, (4) a leaflet for patients and (5) a letter of commitment to optimise antibiotic use to display in their clinic. The primary outcome is the percentage of antibiotics (intravenous and oral) prescribed for RTI patients. Secondary outcomes include patient symptom severity and duration, recovery status, satisfaction, antibiotic consumption. A full economic evaluation will be conducted within the trial period. Costs and savings for both clinics and patients will be considered and quality of life will be measured by EuroQoL (EQ-5D-5L). A qualitative process evaluation will explore practitioner and patient views and experiences of trial processes, intervention fidelity and acceptability, and barriers and facilitators to implementation.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee of Anhui Medical University (Ref: 20180259); the study has undergone due diligence checks and is registered at the University of Bristol (Ref: 2020-3137). Research findings will be disseminated to stakeholders through conferences and peer-reviewed journals in China, the UK and internationally.Trial registration numberISRCTN30652037.

Project description:BackgroundHigh-risk prescribing in primary care is common and causes considerable harm. Feedback interventions have small/moderate effects on clinical practice, but few trials explicitly compare different forms of feedback. There is growing recognition that intervention development should be theory-informed, and that comprehensive reporting of intervention design is required by potential users of trial findings. The paper describes intervention development for the Effective Feedback to Improve Primary Care Prescribing Safety (EFIPPS) study, a pragmatic three-arm cluster randomised trial in 262 Scottish general practices.MethodsThe NHS chose to implement a feedback intervention to utilise a new resource, new Prescribing Information System (newPIS). The development phase required selection of high-risk prescribing outcome measures and design of intervention components: (1) educational material (the usual care comparison), (2) feedback of practice rates of high-risk prescribing received by both intervention arms and (3) a theory-informed behaviour change component to be received by one intervention arm. Outcome measures, educational material and feedback design, were developed with a National Health Service Advisory Group. The behaviour change component was informed by the Theory of Planned Behaviour and the Health Action Process Approach. A focus group elicitation study and an email Delphi study with general practitioners (GPs) identified key attitudes and barriers of responding to the prescribing feedback. Behaviour change techniques were mapped to the psychological constructs, and the content was informed by the results of the elicitation and Delphi study.ResultsSix high-risk prescribing measures were selected in a consensus process based on importance and feasibility. Educational material and feedback design were based on current NHS Scotland practice and Advisory Group recommendations. The behaviour change component was resource constrained in development, mirroring what is feasible in an NHS context. Four behaviour change interventions were developed and embedded in five quarterly rounds of feedback targeting attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control and action planning (2×).ConclusionsThe paper describes a process which is feasible to use in the resource-constrained environment of NHS-led intervention development and documents the intervention to make its design and implementation explicit to potential users of the trial findings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01602705.

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: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 ?(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 ?(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.

Project description:Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of feedback on safety of prescribing compared with moderately enhanced usual care.Design Three arm, highly pragmatic cluster randomised trial.Setting and participants 262/278 (94%) primary care practices in three Scottish health boards.Interventions Practices were randomised to: "usual care," consisting of emailed educational material with support for searching to identify patients (88 practices at baseline, 86 analysed); usual care plus feedback on practice's high risk prescribing sent quarterly on five occasions (87 practices, 86 analysed); or usual care plus the same feedback incorporating a behavioural change component (87 practices, 86 analysed).Main outcome measures The primary outcome was a patient level composite of six prescribing measures relating to high risk use of antipsychotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, and antiplatelets. Secondary outcomes were the six individual measures. The primary analysis compared high risk prescribing in the two feedback arms against usual care at 15 months. Secondary analyses examined immediate change and change in trend of high risk prescribing associated with implementation of the intervention within each arm.Results In the primary analysis, high risk prescribing as measured by the primary outcome fell from 6.0% (3332/55 896) to 5.1% (2845/55 872) in the usual care arm, compared with 5.9% (3341/56 194) to 4.6% (2587/56 478) in the feedback only arm (odds ratio 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.96) compared with usual care; P=0.007) and 6.2% (3634/58 569) to 4.6% (2686/58 582) in the feedback plus behavioural change component arm (0.86 (0.78 to 0.95); P=0.002). In the pre-specified secondary analysis of change in trend within each arm, the usual care educational intervention had no effect on the existing declining trend in high risk prescribing. Both types of feedback were associated with significantly more rapid decline in high risk prescribing after the intervention compared with before.Conclusions Feedback of prescribing safety data was effective at reducing high risk prescribing. The intervention would be feasible to implement at scale in contexts where electronic health records are in general use.Trial registration Clinical trials NCT01602705.

Project description:Self-reported knee pain is highly prevalent among adolescents. As much as 50% of the non-specific knee pain may be attributed to Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome (PFPS). In the short term, exercise therapy appears to have a better effect than patient education consisting of written information and general advice on exercise or compared with placebo treatment. But the long-term effect of exercise therapy compared with patient education is conflicting. The purpose of this study is to examine the short- and long-term effectiveness of patient education compared with patient education and multimodal physiotherapy applied at a very early stage of the condition among adolescents.This study is a single blind pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial. Four upper secondary schools have been invited to participate in the study (approximately 2500 students, aged 15-19 years). Students are asked to answer an online questionnaire regarding musculoskeletal pain. The students who report knee pain are contacted by telephone and offered a clinical examination by a rheumatologist. Subjects who fit the inclusion criteria and are diagnosed with PFPS are invited to participate in the study. A minimum of 102 students with PFPS are then cluster-randomised into two intervention groups based on which school they attend. Both intervention groups receive written information and education. In addition to patient education, one group receives multimodal physiotherapy consisting primarily of neuromuscular training of the muscles around the foot, knee and hip and home exercises. The students with PFPS fill out self-reported questionnaires at baseline, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after inclusion in the study. The primary outcome measure is perception of recovery measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from "completely recovered" to "worse than ever" at 12 months.This study is designed to investigate the effectiveness of patient education compared with patient education combined with multimodal physiotherapy. If patient education and multimodal physiotherapy applied at an early stage of Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome proves effective, it may serve as a basis for optimising the clinical pathway for those suffering from the condition, where specific emphasis can be placed on early diagnosis and early treatment.clinicaltrials.gov reference: NCT01438762.

Project description:BackgroundSmall trials with short term follow up suggest pharmacists' interventions targeted at healthcare professionals can improve prescribing. In comparison with clinical guidance, contemporary statin prescribing is sub-optimal and achievement of cholesterol targets falls short of accepted standards, for patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease who are at highest absolute risk and who stand to obtain greatest benefit. We hypothesised that a pharmacist-led complex intervention delivered to doctors and nurses in primary care, would improve statin prescribing and achievement of cholesterol targets for incident and prevalent patients with vascular disease, beyond one year.MethodsWe allocated general practices to a 12-month Statin Outreach Support (SOS) intervention or usual care. SOS was delivered by one of 11 pharmacists who had received additional training. SOS comprised academic detailing and practical support to identify patients with vascular disease who were not prescribed a statin at optimal dose or did not have cholesterol at target, followed by individualised recommendations for changes to management. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving cholesterol targets. Secondary outcomes were: the proportion of patients prescribed simvastatin 40 mg with target cholesterol achieved; cholesterol levels; prescribing of simvastatin 40 mg; prescribing of any statin and the proportion of patients with cholesterol tested. Outcomes were assessed after an average of 1.7 years (range 1.4-2.2 years), and practice level simvastatin 40 mg prescribing was assessed after 10 years.FindingsWe randomised 31 practices (72 General Practitioners (GPs), 40 nurses). Prior to randomisation a subset of eligible patients were identified to characterise practices; 40% had cholesterol levels below the target threshold. Improvements in data collection procedures allowed identification of all eligible patients (n = 7586) at follow up. Patients in practices allocated to SOS were significantly more likely to have cholesterol at target (69.5% vs 63.5%; OR 1.11, CI 1.00-1.23; p = 0.043) as a result of improved simvastatin prescribing. Subgroup analysis showed the primary outcome was achieved by prevalent but not incident patients. Statistically significant improvements occurred in all secondary outcomes for prevalent patients and all but one secondary outcome (the proportion of patients with cholesterol tested) for incident patients. SOS practices prescribed more simvastatin 40 mg than usual care practices, up to 10 years later.InterpretationThrough a combination of educational and organisational support, a general practice based pharmacist led collaborative intervention can improve statin prescribing and achievement of cholesterol targets in a high-risk primary care based population.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Register ISRCTN61233866.

Dataset Information

Impact of a multifaceted intervention to improve antibiotic prescribing: a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Interventions

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Impact of a multifaceted intervention to improve antibiotic prescribing: a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure