Dataset Information

Antibiotic prescribing in Danish general practice in the elderly population from 2010 to 2017.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This study aimed to describe prescription of antibiotics to the elderly population in general practice in Denmark from 2010-2017.

Design

This is a national register-based observational study.

Setting

General practice, Denmark.

Main outcome measure

The main outcome measure was prescriptions/1,000 inhabitants/day (PrID) in relation to year, age and sex, indication, and antibiotic agent.

Subjects

In this study, we included inhabitants of Denmark, ≥65 years of age between 01st July 2010-30th June 2017.

Results

A total of 5,168,878 prescriptions were included in the study. Antibiotic prescriptions decreased from 2.2 PrID to 1.7 (-26.9%, CI95% [-31.1;-22.4]) PrID during the study. The decrease in PrID was most noticeable among 65-74-year-olds (-25%). The ≥85-year-olds were exposed to twice as many PrID than the 65-74-year-olds, but only accounted for 20% of the total use. Urinary tract infection (UTI) was the most common indication for antibiotic prescription and increased with advancing age. The most commonly prescribed antibiotics were pivmecillinam and phenoxymethylpenicillin. Prescribing with no informative indication was present in one third of all cases.

Conclusion

The prescription of antibiotics in the elderly population in general practice decreased from 2010 to 2017. The oldest age group was exposed twice as frequently to antibiotic prescriptions as the 65-74-year-olds. The smallest reduction was observed for the ≥85-year-olds, suggesting targeting interventions at this group.Key PointsHigh antibiotic use among elderly is well known and studies indicate mis- and overuse within this population. Our study shows.The prescription rate is decreasing within all age groups of the elderly population.The ≥85-year-olds receive twice as many prescriptions/1000/day as the 65-74-years-olds.

SUBMITTER: Veimer Jensen ML

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8725860 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundTrials show that antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategies, including communication skills training, point-of-care C-reactive protein testing (POC-CRPT) and delayed prescriptions, help optimise antibiotic prescribing and use in primary care. However, the use of these strategies in general practice is limited and inconsistent. We aimed to develop an intervention to enhance uptake and implementation of these strategies in primary care.MethodsWe drew on the Person-Based Approach to develop an implementation intervention in two stages. (1) Planning and design: We defined the problem in behavioural terms drawing on existing literature and conducting primary qualitative research (nine focus groups) in high-prescribing general practices. We identified 'guiding principles' with intervention objectives and key features and developed logic models representing intended mechanisms of action. (2) Developing the intervention: We created prototype intervention materials and discussed and refined these with input from 13 health professionals and 14 citizens in two sets of design workshops. We further refined the intervention materials following think-aloud interviews with 22 health professionals.ResultsFocus groups highlighted uncertainties about how strategies could be used. Health professionals in the workshops suggested having practice champions, brief summaries of each AMS strategy and evidence supporting the AMS strategies, and they and citizens gave examples of helpful communication strategies/phrases. Think-aloud interviews helped clarify and shorten the text and user journey of the intervention materials. The intervention comprised components to support practice-level implementation: antibiotic champions, practice meetings with slides provided, and an 'implementation support' website section, and components to support individual-level uptake: website sections on each AMS strategy (with evidence, instructions, links to electronic resources) and material resources (patient leaflets, POC-CRPT equipment, clinician handouts).ConclusionsWe used a systematic, user-focussed process of developing a behavioural intervention, illustrating how it can be used in an implementation context. This resulted in a multicomponent intervention to facilitate practice-wide implementation of evidence-based strategies which now requires implementing and evaluating. Focusing on supporting the uptake and implementation of evidence-based strategies to optimise antibiotic use in general practice is critical to further support appropriate antibiotic use and mitigate antimicrobial resistance.