A Privacy-Preserving Audit and Feedback System for the Antibiotic Prescribing of General Practitioners: Survey Study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Antibiotic resistance is a worldwide public health problem that is accelerated by the misuse and overuse of antibiotics. Studies have shown that audits and feedback enable clinicians to compare their personal clinical performance with that of their peers and are effective in reducing the inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics. However, privacy concerns make audits and feedback hard to implement in clinical settings. To solve this problem, we developed a privacy-preserving audit and feedback (A&F) system.Objective
This study aims to evaluate a privacy-preserving A&F system in clinical settings.Methods
A privacy-preserving A&F system was deployed at three primary care practices in Norway to generate feedback for 20 general practitioners (GPs) on their prescribing of antibiotics for selected respiratory tract infections. The GPs were asked to participate in a survey shortly after using the system.Results
A total of 14 GPs responded to the questionnaire, representing a 70% (14/20) response rate. The participants were generally satisfied with the usefulness of the feedback and the comparisons with peers, as well as the protection of privacy. The majority of the GPs (9/14, 64%) valued the protection of their own privacy as well as that of their patients.Conclusions
The system overcomes important privacy and scaling challenges that are commonly associated with the secondary use of electronic health record data and has the potential to improve antibiotic prescribing behavior; however, further study is required to assess its actual effect.
SUBMITTER: Yigzaw KY
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9330202 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundMuch research worldwide is focussed on cost containment and better adherence to guidelines in healthcare. The research focussing on professional behaviour is often performed in a well-controlled research setting. In this study a large-scale implementation of a peer review strategy was tested on both test ordering and prescribing behaviour in primary care in the normal quality improvement setting.MethodsWe planned a cluster-RCT in existing local quality improvement collaboratives (LQICs) in primary care. The study ran from January 2008 to January 2011. LQICs were randomly assigned to one of two trial arms, with each arm receiving the same intervention of audit and feedback combined with peer review. Both arms were offered five different clinical topics and acted as blind controls for the other arm. The differences in test ordering rates and prescribing rates between both arms were analysed in an intention-to-treat pre-post analysis and a per-protocol analysis.ResultsTwenty-one LQIC groups, including 197 GPs working in 88 practices, entered the trial. The intention-to-treat analysis did not show a difference in the changes in test ordering or prescribing performance between intervention and control groups. The per-protocol analysis showed positive results for half of the clinical topics. The increase in total tests ordered was 3% in the intervention arm and 15% in the control arm. For prescribing the increase in prescriptions was 20% in the intervention arm and 66% in the control group. It was observed that the groups with the highest baseline test ordering and prescription volumes showed the largest improvements.ConclusionsOur study shows that the results from earlier work could not be confirmed by our attempt to implement the strategy in the field. We did not see a decrease in the volumes of tests ordered or of the drugs prescribed but were able to show a lesser increase instead. Implementing the peer review with audit and feedback proved to be not feasible in primary care in the Netherlands.Trial registrationThis trial was registered at the Dutch trial register under number ISRCTN40008171 on August 7th 2007.
| S-EPMC5390393 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5004857 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study investigates the barriers and facilitators of the use of antibiotics in acute respiratory tract infections by general practitioners (GPs) in Germany.A multidisciplinary team designed and pre-tested a written questionnaire addressing the topics awareness of antimicrobial resistance (7 items), use of antibiotics (9 items), guidelines/sources of information (9 items) and sociodemographic factors (7 items), using a five-point-Likert-scale ("never" to "very often"). The questionnaire was mailed by postally to 987 GPs with registered practices in eastern Germany in May 2015.34% (340/987) of the GPs responded to this survey. Most of the participants assumed a multifactorial origin for the rise of multidrug resistant organisms. In addition, 70.2% (239/340) believed that their own prescribing behavior influenced the drug-resistance situation in their area. GPs with longer work experience (>?25 years) assumed less individual influence on drug resistance than their colleagues with less than 7 years experience as practicing physicians (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.32, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.17-0.62; P <?0.001). 99.1% (337/340) of participants were familiar with the "delayed prescription" strategy to reduce antibiotic prescriptions. However, only 29.4% (74/340) answered that they apply it "often" or "very often". GPs working in rural areas were less likely than those working in urban areas to apply delayed prescription.The knowledge on factors causing antimicrobial resistance in bacteria is good among GPs in eastern Germany. However measures to improve rational prescription are not widely implemented yet. Further efforts have to be made in order to improve rational prescription of antibiotic among GPs. Nevertheless, there is a strong awareness of antimicrobial resistance among the participating GPs.
| S-EPMC5935909 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundAntimicrobial resistance is a worldwide threat, exacerbated by inappropriate prescribing. Most antibiotic prescribing occurs in primary care. Early-career GPs are important for the future of antibiotic prescribing and curbing antimicrobial resistance.ObjectivesTo determine antibiotic prescribing patterns by early-career GPs for common acute infections.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase and Scopus. Two authors independently screened abstracts and full texts for inclusion. Primary outcomes were antibiotic prescribing rates for common acute infections by GPs with experience of 10 years or less. Secondary outcomes were any associations between working experience and antibiotic prescribing.ResultsOf 1483 records retrieved, we identified 41 relevant studies. Early-career GPs were less likely to prescribe antibiotics compared with their more experienced colleagues (OR range 0.23-0.67). Their antibiotic prescribing rates for 'any respiratory condition' ranged from 14.6% to 52%, and for upper respiratory tract infections from 13.5% to 33%. Prescribing for acute bronchitis varied by country, from 15.9% in Sweden to 26% in the USA and 63%-73% in Australia. Condition-specific data for all other included acute infections, such as sinusitis and acute otitis media, were limited to the Australian context.ConclusionsEarly-career GPs prescribe fewer antibiotics than later-career GPs. However, there are still significant improvements to be made for common acute conditions, as their prescribing is higher than recommended benchmarks. Addressing antimicrobial resistance requires an ongoing worldwide effort and early-career GPs should be the target for long-term change.
| S-EPMC10904722 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9989898 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions directed at general practitioners (GPs) contribute to an improved antibiotic prescribing. However, it is challenging to implement and maintain such interventions at a national level. Involving the municipalities' Chief Medical Officer (MCMO) in quality improvement activities may simplify the implementation and maintenance, but may also be perceived challenging for the GPs. In the ENORM (Educational intervention in NORwegian Municipalities for antibiotic treatment in line with guidelines) study, MCMOs acted as facilitators of an AMS intervention for GPs. We explored GPs' views on their own antibiotic prescribing, and their views on MCMO involvement in improving antibiotic prescribing in general practice. This is a mixed-methods study combining quantitative and qualitative data from two data sources: e-mail interviews with 15 GPs prior to the ENORM intervention, and online-form answers to closed and open-ended questions from 132 GPs participating in the ENORM intervention. The interviews and open-ended responses were analyzed using systematic text condensation. Many GPs admitted to occasionally prescribing antibiotics without medical indication, mainly due to pressure from patients. Too liberal treatment guidelines were also seen as a reason for overtreatment. The MCMO was considered a suitable and acceptable facilitator of quality improvement activities in general practice, and their involvement was regarded as unproblematic (scale 0 (very problematic) to 10 (not problematic at all): mean 8.2, median 10). GPs acknowledge the need and possibility to improve their own antibiotic prescribing, and in doing so, they welcome engagement from the municipality. MCMOs should be involved in quality improvement and AMS in general practice.
| S-EPMC6783816 | biostudies-other
Project description:Genomic data hold salient information about the characteristics of a living organism. Throughout the past decade, pinnacle developments have given us more accurate and inexpensive methods to retrieve genome sequences of humans. However, with the advancement of genomic research, there is a growing privacy concern regarding the collection, storage and analysis of such sensitive human data. Recent results show that given some background information, it is possible for an adversary to reidentify an individual from a specific genomic data set. This can reveal the current association or future susceptibility of some diseases for that individual (and sometimes the kinship between individuals) resulting in a privacy violation. Regardless of these risks, our genomic data hold much importance in analyzing the well-being of us and the future generation. Thus, in this article, we discuss the different privacy and security-related problems revolving around human genomic data. In addition, we will explore some of the cardinal cryptographic concepts, which can bring efficacy in secure and private genomic data computation. This article will relate the gaps between these two research areas-Cryptography and Genomics.
| S-EPMC6585383 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is high on the UK public health policy agenda, and poses challenges to patient safety and the provision of health services. Widespread prescribing of antibiotics is thought to increase AMR, and mostly takes place in primary medical care. However, prescribing rates vary substantially between general practices. The aim of this study was to understand contextual factors related to general practitioners' (GPs) antibiotic prescribing behaviour in low, high, and around the mean (medium) prescribing primary care practices. METHODS:Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 41 GPs working in North-West England. Participants were purposively sampled from practices with low, medium, and high antibiotic prescribing rates adjusted for the number and characteristics of patients registered in a practice. The interviews were analysed thematically. RESULTS:This study found that optimizing antibiotic prescribing creates tensions for GPs, particularly in doctor-patient communication during a consultation. GPs balanced patient expectations and their own decision-making in their communication. When not prescribing antibiotics, GPs reported the need for supportive mechanisms, such as regular practice meetings, within the practice, and in the wider healthcare system (e.g. longer consultation times). In low prescribing practices, GPs reported that increasing dialogue with colleagues, having consistent patterns of prescribing within the practice, supportive practice policies, and enough resources such as consultation time were important supports when not prescribing antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS:Insight into GPs' negotiations with patient and public health demands, and consistent and supportive practice-level policies can help support prudent antibiotic prescribing among primary care practices.
| S-EPMC6905031 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Antibiotic prescribing in dentistry accounts for 9% of total antibiotic prescriptions in Scottish primary care. The Scottish Dental Clinical Effectiveness Programme (SDCEP) published guidance in April 2008 (2nd edition, August 2011) for Drug Prescribing in Dentistry, which aims to assist dentists to make evidence-based antibiotic prescribing decisions. However, wide variation in prescribing persists and the overall use of antibiotics is increasing. METHODS:RAPiD is a 12-month partial factorial cluster randomised trial conducted in NHS General Dental Practices across Scotland. Its aim is to compare the effectiveness of individualised audit and feedback (A&F) strategies for the translation into practice of SDCEP recommendations on antibiotic prescribing. The trial uses routinely collected electronic healthcare data in five aspects of its design in order to: identify the study population; apply eligibility criteria; carry out stratified randomisation; generate the trial intervention; analyse trial outcomes. Eligibility was determined on contract status and a minimum level of recent NHS treatment provision. All eligible dental practices in Scotland were simultaneously randomised at baseline either to current audit practice or to an intervention group. Randomisation was stratified by single-handed/multi-handed practices. General dental practitioners (GDPs) working at intervention practices will receive individualised graphical representations of their antibiotic prescribing rate from the previous 14 months at baseline and an update at six months. GDPs could not be blinded to their practice allocation. Intervention practices were further randomised using a factorial design to receive feedback with or without: a health board comparator; a supplementary text-based intervention; additional feedback at nine months. The primary outcome is the total antibiotic prescribing rate per 100 courses of treatment over the year following delivery of the baseline intervention. A concurrent qualitative process evaluation will apply theory-based approaches using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to explore the acceptability of the interventions and the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify barriers and enablers to evidence-based antibiotic prescribing behaviour by GDPs. DISCUSSION:RAPiD will provide a robust evaluation of A&F in dentistry in Scotland. It also demonstrates that linked administrative datasets have the potential to be used efficiently and effectively across all stages of an randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49204710.
| S-EPMC4108126 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesAdopting an attributional perspective, the current article investigates how audit and feedback group sessions contribute to general practitioners' (GPs) motivation to change their practice behaviour to improve care. We focus on the contributions of the audit and feedback itself (content) and the group discussion (process).MethodsFour focus groups, comprising a total of 39 participating Dutch GPs, discussed and compared audit and feedback of their practices. The focus groups were analysed thematically.ResultsAudit and feedback contributed to GPs' motivation to change in two ways: by raising awareness about aspects of their current care practice and by providing indications of the possible impact of change. For these contributions to play out, the audit and feedback should be reliable and valid, specific, recent and recurrent and concern GPs' own practices or practices within their own influence sphere. Care behaviour attributed to external, uncontrollable or unstable causes would not induce change. The added value of the group is twofold as well: group discussion contributed to GPs' motivation to change by providing a frame of reference and by affording insights that participants would not have been able to achieve on their own.ConclusionsIn audit and feedback group sessions, both audit and feedback information and group discussion can valuably contribute to GPs' motivation to change care practice behaviour. Peer interaction can positively contribute to explore alternative practices and avenues for improvement. Local or regional peer meetings would be beneficial in facilitating reflection and discussion. An important avenue for future studies is to explore the contribution of audit and feedback and small-group discussion to actual practice change.
| S-EPMC6549704 | biostudies-literature