Dataset Information

Effect of Antibiotic-Prescribing Feedback to High-Volume Primary Care Physicians on Number of Antibiotic Prescriptions: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Antibiotic overuse contributes to adverse drug effects, increased costs, and antimicrobial resistance.

Objective

To evaluate peer-comparison audit and feedback to high-prescribing primary care physicians (PCPs) and assess the effect of targeted messaging on avoiding unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions and avoiding long-duration prescribing.

Design, setting, and participants

In this 3-arm randomized clinical trial, administrative data collected from IQVIA's Xponent database were used to recruit the highest quartile of antibiotic-prescribing PCPs (n = 3500) in Ontario, Canada.

Interventions

Physicians were randomized 3:3:1 to receive a mailed letter sent in December 2018 addressing antibiotic treatment initiation (n = 1500), a letter addressing prescribing duration (n = 1500), or no letter (control; n = 500). Outliers at the 99th percentile at baseline for each arm were excluded from analysis.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was total number of antibiotic prescriptions over 12 months postintervention. Secondary outcomes were number of prolonged-duration prescriptions (>7 days) and antibiotic drug costs (in Canadian dollars). Robust Poisson regression controlling for baseline prescriptions was used for analysis.

Results

Of the 3465 PCPs included in analysis, 2405 (69.4%) were male, and 2116 (61.1%) were 25 or more years from their medical graduation. At baseline, PCPs receiving the antibiotic initiation letter and duration letter prescribed an average of 988 and 1000 antibiotic prescriptions, respectively; at 12 months postintervention, these PCPs prescribed an average of 849 and 851 antibiotic prescriptions, respectively. For the primary outcome of total antibiotic prescriptions 12 months postintervention, there was no statistically significant difference in total antibiotic use between PCPs who received the initiation letter compared with controls (relative risk [RR], 0.96; 97.5% CI, 0.92-1.01; P = .06) and a small statistically significant difference for the duration letter compared with controls (RR, 0.95; 97.5% CI, 0.91-1.00; P = .01). For PCPs receiving the duration letter, this corresponds to an average of 42 fewer antibiotic prescriptions over 12 months. There was no statistically significant difference between the letter arms. For the initiation letter, compared with controls there was an RR of 0.98 (97.5% CI, 0.93-1.03; P = .42) and 0.97 (97.5% CI, 0.92-1.02; P = .19) for the outcomes of prolonged-duration prescriptions and antibiotic drug costs, respectively. At baseline, PCPs who received the duration letter prescribed an average of 332 prolonged-duration prescriptions with $14 470 in drug costs. There was an 8.1% relative reduction (RR, 0.92; 97.5% CI, 0.87-0.97; P < .001) in prolonged-duration prescriptions, and a 6.1% relative reduction in antibiotic drug costs (RR, 0.94; 97.5% CI, 0.89-0.99; P = .01). This corresponds to an average of 24 fewer prolonged-duration prescriptions and $771 in drug cost savings per PCP over 12 months.

Conclusions and relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, a single mailed letter to the highest-prescribing PCPs in Ontario, Canada providing peer-comparison feedback, including messaging on limiting antibiotic-prescribing durations, led to statistically significant reductions in total and prolonged-duration antibiotic prescriptions, as well as drug costs.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03776383.

SUBMITTER: Schwartz KL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8261687 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInappropriate use of antibiotics promotes antibiotic resistance. Little is known about physician characteristics that may be associated with inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Our objective was to assess whether physician knowledge, time in practice, place of training and practice volume explain the differences in antibiotic prescribing among physicians.MethodsA historical cohort of 852 primary care physicians in Quebec who became certified between 1990 and 1993 was followed for their first 6-9 years of practice (1990-1998). We evaluated whether inappropriate antibiotic prescribing had occurred during the study period (1990-1998) for viral (prescription of antibiotics) and bacterial (prescription of second-or third-line antibiotics given orally) infections. We used logistic regression to estimate the independent contributions of time in practice, practice volume, place of medical training and scores on licensure examinations. Physician sex and visit setting were controlled for, as were patient age, sex, education, income and geographic area of residence.ResultsA total of 104 230 patients who received a diagnosis of a viral infection and 65 304 who received a diagnosis of a bacterial infection were included in our study. International medical graduates were more likely than University of Montréal graduates to prescribe antibiotics for viral respiratory infections (risk ratio [RR] 1.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30-2.44). Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing increased with time in practice. Physicians with a high practice volume were more likely than those with low practice volume to prescribe antibiotics for viral respiratory infections (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.09-1.48) and to prescribe second-and third-line antibiotics as first-line treatment (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06-1.37). Physician scores on licensure examinations were not predictive of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing.InterpretationInternational medical graduates, physicians with high-volume practices and those who were in practice longer were more likely to prescribe antibiotics inappropriately. Developing effective interventions will require increased knowledge of the mechanisms that underlie these predictors of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing.

Project description:ImportanceAntibiotics are commonly prescribed in primary care, increasing the risk of antimicrobial resistance in the population.ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of quarterly audit and feedback on antibiotic prescribing among primary care physicians in Switzerland with medium to high antibiotic prescription rates.Design, setting, and participantsThis pragmatic randomized clinical trial was conducted from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019, among 3426 registered primary care physicians and pediatricians in single or small practices in Switzerland who were among the top 75% prescribers of antibiotics. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed using analysis of covariance models and conducted from September 1, 2021, to January 31, 2022.InterventionsPrimary care physicians were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to undergo quarterly antibiotic prescribing audit and feedback with peer benchmarking vs no intervention for 2 years, with 2017 used as the baseline year. Anonymized patient-level claims data from 3 health insurers serving roughly 50% of insurees in Switzerland were used for audit and feedback. The intervention group also received evidence-based guidelines for respiratory tract and urinary tract infection management and community antibiotic resistance information. Physicians in the intervention group were blinded regarding the nature of the trial, and physicians in the control group were not informed of the trial.Main outcomes and measuresThe claims data used for audit and feedback were analyzed to assess outcomes. Primary outcome was the antibiotic prescribing rate per 100 consultations during the second year of the intervention. Secondary end points included overall antibiotic use in the first year and over 2 years, use of quinolones and oral cephalosporins, all-cause hospitalizations, and antibiotic use in 3 age groups.ResultsA total of 3426 physicians were randomized to the intervention (n = 1713) and control groups (n = 1713) serving 629 825 and 622 344 patients, respectively, with a total of 4 790 525 consultations in the baseline year of 2017. In the entire cohort, a 4.2% (95% CI, 3.9%-4.6%) relative increase in the antibiotic prescribing rate was noted during the second year of the intervention compared with 2017. In the intervention group, the median annual antibiotic prescribing rate per 100 consultations was 8.2 (IQR, 6.1-11.4) in the second year of the intervention and was 8.4 (IQR, 6.0-11.8) in the control group. Relative to the overall increase, a -0.1% (95% CI, -1.2% to 1.0%) lower antibiotic prescribing rate per 100 consultations was found in the intervention group compared with the control group. No relevant reductions in specific antibiotic prescribing rates were noted between groups except for quinolones in the second year of the intervention (-0.9% [95% CI, -1.5% to -0.4%]).Conclusions and relevanceThis randomized clinical trial found that quarterly personalized antibiotic prescribing audit and feedback with peer benchmarking did not reduce antibiotic prescribing among primary care physicians in Switzerland with medium to high antibiotic prescription rates.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03379194.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate whether providing family physicians with feedback on their antibiotic prescribing compared with that of their peers reduces antibiotic prescriptions. To also identify effects on antibiotic prescribing from case-mix adjusted feedback reports and messages emphasising antibiotic associated harms.DesignPragmatic, factorial randomised controlled trial.SettingPrimary care physicians in Ontario, Canada PARTICIPANTS: All primary care physicians were randomly assigned a group if they were eligible and actively prescribing antibiotics to patients 65 years or older. Physicians were excluded if had already volunteered to receive antibiotic prescribing feedback from another agency, or had opted out of the trial.InterventionA letter was mailed in January 2022 to physicians with peer comparison antibiotic prescribing feedback compared with the control group who did not receive a letter (4:1 allocation). The intervention group was further randomised in a 2x2 factorial trial to evaluate case-mix adjusted versus unadjusted comparators, and emphasis, or not, on harms of antibiotics.Main outcome measuresAntibiotic prescribing rate per 1000 patient visits for patients 65 years or older six months after intervention. Analysis was in the modified intention-to-treat population using Poisson regression.Results5046 physicians were included and analysed: 1005 in control group and 4041 in intervention group (1016 case-mix adjusted data and harms messaging, 1006 with case-mix adjusted data and no harms messaging, 1006 unadjusted data and harms messaging, and 1013 unadjusted data and no harms messaging). At six months, mean antibiotic prescribing rate was 59.4 (standard deviation 42.0) in the control group and 56.0 (39.2) in the intervention group (relative rate 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.94 to 0.96). Unnecessary antibiotic prescribing (0.89 (0.86 to 0.92)), prolonged duration prescriptions defined as more than seven days (0.85 (0.83 to 0.87)), and broad spectrum prescribing (0.94 (0.92 to 0.95)) were also significantly lower in the intervention group compared with the control group. Results were consistent at 12 months post intervention. No significant effect was seen for including emphasis on harms messaging. A small increase in antibiotic prescribing with case-mix adjusted reports was noted (1.01 (1.00 to 1.03)).ConclusionsPeer comparison audit and feedback letters significantly reduced overall antibiotic prescribing with no benefit of case-mix adjustment or harms messaging. Antibiotic prescribing audit and feedback is a scalable and effective intervention and should be a routine quality improvement initiative in primary care.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04594200.

Project description:BackgroundThere has been a notable decrease in antibiotic prescribing in the last thirty years in Sweden. Little is known about factors influencing antibiotic prescribing over several years.ObjectiveTo compare primary care physicians who, over time, reduced their antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections with those who remained either high or low prescribers regarding potentially influencing factors.Design and settingA register-based study including all RTI visits in primary care in Region Kronoberg, Sweden 2006-2014. The data were divided into three 3-year periods.SubjectsThe data comprised all physicians who had diagnosed at least one RTI for each of the three-year periods. The antibiotic prescribing rate adjusted for the patients' sex and age group was calculated for each physician and period, and based on the change between the first and the third period, the physicians were divided into three prescriber groups: The High Prescribing Group, the Decreasing Prescribing Group, and the Low Prescribing Group.Main outcome measuresFor the three prescriber groups, we compared factors influencing antibiotic prescribing such as the characteristics of the physicians, their use of point-of-care tests, their choice of diagnoses, and whether the patients returned and received antibiotics.ResultsThe High Prescribing Group ordered more point-of-care tests, registered more potential bacterial diagnoses, prescribed antibiotics at lower C-reactive protein levels, and prescribed antibiotics more often despite negative group A Streptococci test than in the Low Prescribing Group. The Decreasing Prescribing Group was between the High Prescribing Group and the Low Prescribing Group regarding these variables. The lower prescription rate in the Low Prescribing Group did not result in more return visits or new antibiotic prescriptions within 30 days.ConclusionPoint-of-care testing and its interpretation differed between the prescriber groups. Focus on interpreting point-of-care test results could be a way forward in antibiotic stewardship.

Project description:BackgroundAudit and feedback (A&F) that shows how health professionals compare to those of their peers, can be an effective intervention to reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing among family physicians. However, the most impactful design approach to A&F to achieve this aim is uncertain. We will test three design modifications of antibiotic A&F that could be readily scaled and sustained if shown to be effective: (1) inclusion of case-mix-adjusted peer comparator versus a crude comparator, (2) emphasizing harms, rather than lack of benefits, and (3) providing a viral prescription pad.MethodsWe will conduct two interrelated pragmatic randomized trials in January 2021. One trial will include family physicians in Ontario who have signed up to receive their MyPractice: Primary Care report from Ontario Health ("OH Trial"). These physicians will be cluster-randomized by practice, 1:1 to intervention or control. The intervention group will also receive a Viral Prescription Pad mailed to their office as well as added emphasis in their report on use of the pad. Ontario family physicians who have not signed up to receive their MyPractice: Primary Care report will be included in the other trial administered by Public Health Ontario ("PHO Trial"). These physicians will be allocated 4:1 to intervention or control. The intervention group will be further randomized by two factors: case-mix adjusted versus unadjusted comparator and emphasis or not on harms of antibiotics. Physicians in the intervention arm of this trial will receive one of four versions of a personalized antibiotic A&F letter from PHO. For both trials, the primary outcome is the antibiotic prescribing rate per 1000 patient visits, measured at 6 months post-randomization, the primary analysis will use Poisson regression and we will follow the intention to treat principle. A mixed-methods process evaluation will use surveys and interviews with family physicians to explore potential mechanisms underlying the observed effects, exploring targeted constructs including intention, self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, descriptive norms, and goal prioritization.DiscussionThis protocol describes the rationale and methodology of two interrelated pragmatic trials testing variations of theory-informed components of an audit and feedback intervention to determine how to optimize A&F interventions for antibiotic prescribing in primary care.Trial registrationNCT04594200, NCT05044052. CIHR Grant ID: 398514.

Project description:Background:Irrational use of antibiotics is a major driver of development of antibiotic resistance, which heavily threatens population health worldwide. Understanding the mechanism of physician's antibiotic prescribing decisions is increasingly highlighted to promote prudent use of antibiotics. Therefore, the current study aimed to fill the gap, modelling physician's antibiotic prescribing and identifying the potential intrinsic and external determinants of antibiotic prescribing in primary care. Methods:A total of 428,475 prescriptions from 499 prescribers in 65 primary care facilities in Hubei of China were audited. Teixeira Antibiotic Prescribing Behavioral Model (TAPBM) was referred as theoretical basis to identify intrinsic and external predictors of antibiotic prescriptions. A questionnaire survey was conducted, covering potential physician's intrinsic determinants (knowledge, attitudes and individual characteristics) and external factors both in individual level (patient pressure, time pressure and financial incentives) and institutional level (setting and local socio-economic development). A two-level path analysis was performed linking potential determinants of antibiotic use with physician's actual practices. Results:About 44.28% of the prescriptions contained antibiotics, with 9.28% containing two or more antibiotics. The multi-level path analysis revealed that knowledge was a significant predictor of attitudes (??=?0.154, p?<?0.05), but higher knowledge and attitudes failed to translate into antibiotic prescribing practices ((??=?-?0.076 - 0.039, p?>?0.05). Instead, external factors played a more important role and physician's antibiotic use was significantly associated with patient pressure (??=?0.102, p?=?0.022), time pressure (??=?-?0.164, p?=?0.002), financial incentives (??=?-?0.133- -?0.155, p?=?0.027) and institutional environments (rural area, ??=?0.408, p?=?0.002; and high socioeconomic setting, ??=?-?0.641 - -0.578, p?< 0.001?). The prescribers who were male (??=?-?0.168, p?=?0.007) or had lower qualification (??=?-?0.114, p?=?0.028) were also more likely to prescribe antibiotics than others. Conclusion:Antibiotic prescribing practices are complex process and associated with both intrinsic (prescriber) and external (patients and institutional environment) factors. A systematic approach is required to curb over-prescription of antibiotics. Apart from educating prescribers, it is equally important, if not more, to educate patients, break incentives and nurture professional culture within organization to reduce the overuse of antibiotics.

Project description:BackgroundAntimicrobial resistance is a worldwide challenge for health services and systems alike. To reduce the overuse of antibiotics, multifaceted interventions are often used to achieve sustainable effects. It can be assumed that these effects are influenced by contextual factors. Embedded in the cluster randomized trial ARena (Sustainable reduction of antibiotic-induced antimicrobial resistance), the aim of this present study was to identify contextual factors associated with practitioners' perceptions of antibiotic prescribing in German primary health care.MethodsIn a prospective observational study, data were generated in a three-wave survey study between January 2018 and July 2019. Analysis was performed using logistic regression models. The outcome of interest was the physician perceived impact of participating in the ARena project on decision-making regarding antibiotic prescribing, the independent variables of interest included individual characteristics, intervention arm allocation, primary care network (PCN) environment and characteristics of the medical practice.ResultsForty Six point eight percent (n = 126) of participants indicated to have perceived an impact on their decision-making regarding antibiotic prescribing by participating in the ARena project. Bivariate logistic regression analyses indicated that work experience (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.006-1.103), PCN environment (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.256-3.363), structural conditions (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.161-2.371), environment of existing processes (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.011-2.094), and externally defined general conditions (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.035-2.378) were associated with physicians' perceived impact of participating in the ARena project on decision-making regarding antibiotic prescribing. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, only work experience OR 1.05 (95% CI 1.001-1.104) continuously showed a significant influence.ConclusionsThis study indicates that contextual factors at individual, practice, and system level influence physicians' perceptions of antibiotic prescribing. Longer work experience appeared to be a significant influencing factor to be considered in antimicrobial stewardship programs.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN58150046 (registered 13.09.2017).