Dataset Information

A pragmatic randomized trial of a primary care antimicrobial stewardship intervention in Ontario, Canada.

ABSTRACT:

Background

More than 90% of antibiotics are prescribed in primary care, but 50% may be unnecessary. Reducing unnecessary antibiotic overuse is needed to limit antimicrobial resistance. We conducted a pragmatic trial of a primary care provider-focused antimicrobial stewardship intervention to reduce antibiotic prescriptions in primary care.

Methods

Primary care practitioners from six primary care clinics in Toronto, Ontario were assigned to intervention or control groups to evaluate the effectiveness of a multi-faceted intervention for reducing antibiotic prescriptions to adults with respiratory and urinary tract infections. The intervention included provider education, clinical decision aids, and audit and feedback of antibiotic prescribing. The primary outcome was total antibiotic prescriptions for these infections. Secondary outcomes were delayed prescriptions, prescriptions longer than 7 days, recommended antibiotic use, and outcomes for individual infections. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate treatment effects, adjusting for clustering by clinic and baseline differences.

Results

There were 1682 encounters involving 54 primary care providers from January until May 31, 2019. In intervention clinics, the odds of any antibiotic prescription was reduced 22% (adjusted Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.78; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.64.0.96). The odds that a delay in filling a prescription was recommended was increased (adjusted OR=2.29; 95% CI=1.37, 3.83), while prescription durations greater than 7 days were reduced (adjusted OR=0.24; 95% CI=0.13, 0.43). Recommended antibiotic use was similar in control (85.4%) and intervention clinics (91.8%, p=0.37).

Conclusions

A community-based, primary care provider-focused antimicrobial stewardship intervention was associated with a reduced likelihood of antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory and urinary infections, an increase in delayed prescriptions, and reduced prescription durations.

Trial registration

clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03517215 ).

SUBMITTER: McIsaac W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8442308 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAntimicrobial resistance undermines our ability to treat bacterial infections, leading to longer hospital stays, increased morbidity and mortality, and a mounting burden to the healthcare system. Antimicrobial stewardship is increasingly important to safeguard the efficacy of existing drugs, as few new drugs are in the developmental pipeline. While significant progress has been made with respect to stewardship in hospitals, relatively little progress has been made in the primary care setting, where the majority of antimicrobials are prescribed. OPEN Stewardship is an international collaboration to develop an automated feedback platform to improve responsible antimicrobial prescribing among primary care physicians and capable of being deployed across heterogeneous healthcare settings. We describe the protocol for an evaluation of this automated feedback intervention with two main objectives: assessing changes in antimicrobial prescribing among participating physicians and determining the usability and usefulness of the reports.Methods and analysisA non-randomised evaluation of the automated feedback intervention (OPEN Stewardship) will be conducted among approximately 150 primary care physicians recruited from Ontario, Canada and Southern Israel, based on a series of targeted stewardship messages sent using the platform. Using a controlled interrupted time-series analysis and multilevel negative binomial modelling, we will compare the antimicrobial prescribing rates of participants before and after the intervention, and also to the prescribing rates of non-participants (from the same healthcare network) during the same period. We will examine outcomes targeted by the stewardship messages, including prescribing for antimicrobials with duration longer than 7 days and prescribing for indications where antimicrobials are typically unnecessary. Participants will also complete a series of surveys to determine the usability and usefulness of the stewardship reports.Ethics and disseminationAll sites have obtained ethics committee approval to recruit providers and access anonymised prescribing data. Dissemination will occur through open-access publication, stakeholder networks and national/international meetings.

Project description:BackgroundMultimorbidity, the co-existence of 2+ (or 3+) chronic diseases in an individual, is an increasingly common global phenomenon leading to reduced quality of life and functional status, and higher healthcare service use and mortality. There is an urgent need to develop and test new models of care that incorporate the components of multimorbidity interventions recommended by international organizations, including care coordination, interdisciplinary teams, and care plans developed with patients that are tailored to their needs and preferences.PurposeTo determine the effectiveness of a 6-month, community-based, multimorbidity intervention compared to usual home care services for community-dwelling older adults (age 65+ years) with multimorbidity (3+ chronic conditions) that were newly referred to and receiving home care services.MethodsA pragmatic, parallel, two-arm randomized controlled trial evaluated the intervention, which included in-home visits by an interdisciplinary team, personal support worker visits, and monthly case conferences. The study took place in two sites in central Ontario, Canada. Eligible and consenting participants were randomly allocated to the intervention and control group using a 1:1 ratio. The participants, statistician/analyst, and research assistants collecting assessment data were blinded. The primary outcome was the Physical Component Summary (PCS) score of the 12-Item Short-Form health survey (SF-12). Secondary outcomes included the SF-12 Mental Component Summary (MCS) score, Center for Epidemiological Studies of Depression (CESD-10), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease, and service use and costs. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) tested group differences using multiple imputation to address missing data, and non-parametric methods explored service use and cost differences.Results59 older adults were randomized into the intervention (n = 30) and control (n = 29) groups. At baseline, groups were similar for the primary outcome and number of chronic conditions (mean of 8.6), but the intervention group had lower mental health status. The intervention was cost neutral and no significant group differences were observed for the primary outcome of PCS from SF-12 (mean difference: -4.94; 95% CI: -12.53 to 2.66; p = 0.20) or secondary outcomes.ConclusionWe evaluated a 6-month, self-management intervention for older adults with multimorbidity. While the intervention was cost neutral in comparison to usual care, it was not found to improve the PCS from SF-12 or secondary health outcomes. Recruitment and retention challenges were significant obstacles limiting our ability to assess intervention effectiveness. Yet, the intervention was grounded in internationally-endorsed recommendations and implemented in a practice setting (home care) viewed as a key upstream resource fostering independence in older adults. These features collectively support the identification of ways to recruit/retain older adults and test alternative implementation strategies for interventions that are based on sound principles of multimorbidity management.

Project description:ObjectiveWhile various interventions have helped reduce antibiotic prescribing, further gains can be made. This study aimed to identify ways to optimise antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions by assessing the extent to which important influences on antibiotic prescribing are addressed (or not) by behavioural content of AMS interventions.SettingsEnglish primary care.InterventionsAMS interventions targeting healthcare professionals' antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections.MethodsWe conducted two rapid reviews. The first included qualitative studies with healthcare professionals on self-reported influences on antibiotic prescribing. The influences were inductively coded and categorised using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Prespecified criteria were used to identify key TDF domains. The second review included studies of AMS interventions. Data on effectiveness were extracted. Components of effective interventions were extracted and coded using the TDF, Behaviour Change Wheel and Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTs) taxonomy. Using prespecified matrices, we assessed the extent to which BCTs and intervention functions addressed the key TDF domains of influences on prescribing.ResultsWe identified 13 qualitative studies, 41 types of influences on antibiotic prescribing and 6 key TDF domains of influences: 'beliefs about consequences', 'social influences', 'skills', 'environmental context and resources', 'intentions' and 'emotions'. We identified 17 research-tested AMS interventions; nine of them effective and four nationally implemented. Interventions addressed all six key TDF domains of influences. Four of these six key TDF domains were addressed by 50%-67% BCTs that were theoretically congruent with these domains, whereas TDF domain 'skills' was addressed by 24% of congruent BCTs and 'emotions' by none.ConclusionsFurther improvement of antibiotic prescribing could be facilitated by: (1) national implementation of effective research-tested AMS interventions (eg, electronic decision support tools, training in interactive use of leaflets, point-of-care testing); (2) targeting important, less-addressed TDF domains (eg, 'skills', 'emotions'); (3) using relevant, under-used BCTs to target key TDF domains (eg, 'forming/reversing habits', 'reducing negative emotions', 'social support'). These could be incorporated into existing, or developed as new, AMS interventions.

Project description:BackgroundElders living with polypharmacy may be taking medications that do not benefit them. Polypharmacy can be associated with elevated risks of poor health, reduced quality of life, high care costs, and persistently complex care needs. While many medications could be problematic, this project targets medications that should be deprescribed for most elders and for which guidelines and evidence-based deprescribing tools are available. These are termed potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) and are as follows: proton pump inhibitors, benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, and sulfonylureas. Implementation strategies for deprescribing PIPs in complex older patient populations are needed.MethodsThis will be a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial in community-based primary care practices across Canada. Eligible practices provide comprehensive primary care and have at least one physician that consents to participate. Community-dwelling patients aged 65 years and older with ten or more unique medication prescriptions in the past year will be included. The objective is to assess whether the intervention reduces targeted PIPs for these patients compared with usual care. The intervention, Structured Process Informed by Data, Evidence and Research (SPIDER), is a collaboration between quality improvement (QI) and research programs. Primary care teams will form interprofessional Learning Collaboratives and work with QI coaches to review electronic medical record data provided by their regional Practice Based Research Networks (PBRNs), identify areas of improvement, and develop and implement changes. The study will be tested for feasibility in three PBRNs (Toronto, Montreal, and Edmonton) using prospective single-arm mixed methods. Findings will then guide a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial in five PBRNs (Calgary, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Montreal, and Halifax). Seven practices per PBRN will be recruited for each arm. The analysis will be by intention to treat. Ten percent of patients who have at least one PIP at baseline will be randomly selected to participate in the assessment of patient experience and self-reported outcomes. Qualitative methods will be used to explore patient and physician experience and evaluate SPIDER's processes.ConclusionWe are testing SPIDER in a primary care population with complex care needs. This could provide a widely applicable model for care improvement.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT03689049 ; registered September 28, 2018.

Project description:IntroductionAntimicrobial resistance (AMR) impacts the health and well-being of animals, affects animal owners both socially and economically, and contributes to AMR at the human and environmental interface. The overuse and/or inappropriate use of antibiotics in animals has been identified as one of the most important drivers of the development of AMR in animals. Effective antibiotic stewardship interventions such as feedback can be adopted in veterinary practices to improve antibiotic prescribing. However, the provision of dedicated financial and technical resources to implement such systems are challenging. The newly developed web-based Online Platform for Expanding Antibiotic Stewardship (OPEN Stewardship) platform aims to automate the generation of feedback reports and facilitate wider adoption of antibiotic stewardship. This paper describes a protocol to evaluate the usability and usefulness of a feedback intervention among veterinarians and assess its impact on individual antibiotic prescribing.Methods and analysisApproximately 80 veterinarians from Ontario, Canada and 60 veterinarians from Israel will be voluntarily enrolled in a controlled interrupted time-series study and their monthly antibiotic prescribing data accessed. The study intervention consists of targeted feedback reports generated using the OPEN Stewardship platform. After a 3-month preintervention period, a cohort of veterinarians (treatment cohort, n=120) will receive three feedback reports over the course of 6 months while the remainder of the veterinarians (n=20) will be the control cohort. A survey will be administered among the treatment cohort after each feedback cycle to assess the usability and usefulness of various elements of the feedback report. A multilevel negative-binomial regression analysis of the preintervention and postintervention antibiotic prescribing of the treatment cohort will be performed to evaluate the impact of the intervention.Ethics and disseminationResearch ethics board approval was obtained at each participating site prior to the recruitment of the veterinarians. The study findings will be disseminated through open-access scientific publications, stakeholder networks and national/international meetings.

Project description:BackgroundChronic pain is common, disabling, and costly. Few clinical trials have examined cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) interventions embedded in primary care settings to improve chronic pain among those receiving long-term opioid therapy.ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of a group-based CBT intervention for chronic pain.DesignPragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02113592).SettingKaiser Permanente health care systems in Georgia, Hawaii, and the Northwest.ParticipantsAdults (aged ≥18 years) with mixed chronic pain conditions receiving long-term opioid therapy.InterventionA CBT intervention teaching pain self-management skills in 12 weekly, 90-minute groups delivered by an interdisciplinary team (behaviorist, nurse, physical therapist, and pharmacist) versus usual care.MeasurementsSelf-reported pain impact (primary outcome, as measured by the PEGS scale [pain intensity and interference with enjoyment of life, general activity, and sleep]) was assessed quarterly over 12 months. Pain-related disability, satisfaction with care, and opioid and benzodiazepine use based on electronic health care data were secondary outcomes.ResultsA total of 850 patients participated, representing 106 clusters of primary care providers (mean age, 60.3 years; 67.4% women); 816 (96.0%) completed follow-up assessments. Intervention patients sustained larger reductions on all self-reported outcomes from baseline to 12-month follow-up; the change in PEGS score was -0.434 point (95% CI, -0.690 to -0.178 point) for pain impact, and the change in pain-related disability was -0.060 point (CI, -0.084 to -0.035 point). At 6 months, intervention patients reported higher satisfaction with primary care (difference, 0.230 point [CI, 0.053 to 0.406 point]) and pain services (difference, 0.336 point [CI, 0.129 to 0.543 point]). Benzodiazepine use decreased more in the intervention group (absolute risk difference, -0.055 [CI, -0.099 to -0.011]), but opioid use did not differ significantly between groups.LimitationThe inclusion of only patients with insurance in large integrated health care systems limited generalizability, and the clinical effect of change in scores is unclear.ConclusionPrimary care-based CBT, using frontline clinicians, produced modest but sustained reductions in measures of pain and pain-related disability compared with usual care but did not reduce use of opioid medication.Primary funding sourceNational Institutes of Health.