Dataset Information

Effect of Antibiotic Prescription Audit and Feedback on Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Antibiotics are commonly prescribed in primary care, increasing the risk of antimicrobial resistance in the population.

Objective

To 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 participants

This 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.

Interventions

Primary 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 measures

The 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.

Results

A 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 relevance

This 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 registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03379194.

SUBMITTER: Aghlmandi S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9989898 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of Antibiotic Prescription Audit and Feedback on Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Aghlmandi Soheila S Halbeisen Florian S FS Saccilotto Ramon R Godet Pascal P Signorell Andri A Sigrist Simon S Glinz Dominik D Moffa Giusi G Zeller Andreas A Widmer Andreas F AF Kronenberg Andreas A Bielicki Julia J Bucher Heiner C HC

JAMA internal medicine 20230301 3

<h4>Importance</h4>Antibiotics are commonly prescribed in primary care, increasing the risk of antimicrobial resistance in the population.<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate the effect of quarterly audit and feedback on antibiotic prescribing among primary care physicians in Switzerland with medium to high antibiotic prescription rates.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>This pragmatic randomized clinical trial was conducted from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019, among 3426 registered pr ...[more]

PMID: 36745412

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhile numerous antimicrobial stewardship programs aim to decrease inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions, evidence of their positive impact is needed to optimize future interventions.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate 2 multifaceted antibiotic stewardship interventions for inappropriate systemic antibiotic prescription in primary care.MethodsAn open-label, cluster-randomized controlled trial of 2501 general practitioners (GPs) working in western France was conducted from July 2019 to January 2021. Two interventions were studied: the standard intervention, consisting of a visit by a health insurance representative who gave prescription feedback and provided a leaflet for treating cystitis and tonsillitis; and a clinical decision support system (CDSS)-based intervention, consisting of a visit with prescription feedback and a CDSS demonstration on antibiotic prescribing. The control group received no intervention. Data on systemic antibiotic dispensing was obtained from the National Health Insurance System (Système National d'Information Inter-Régimes de l'Assurance Maladie) database. The overall antibiotic volume dispensed per GP at 12 months was compared between arms using a 2-level hierarchical analysis of covariance adjusted for annual antibiotic prescription volume at baseline.ResultsOverall, 2501 GPs were randomized (n=1099, 43.9% women). At 12 months, the mean volume of systemic antibiotics per GP decreased by 219.2 (SD 61.4; 95% CI -339.5 to -98.8; P<.001) defined daily doses in the CDSS-based visit group compared with the control group. The decrease in the mean volume of systemic antibiotics dispensed per GP was not significantly different between the standard visit group and the control group (-109.7, SD 62.4; 95% CI -232.0 to 12.5 defined daily doses; P=.08).ConclusionsA visit by a health insurance representative combining feedback and a CDSS demonstration resulted in a 4.4% (-219.2/4930) reduction in the total volume of systemic antibiotic prescriptions in 12 months.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04028830; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04028830.

Project description:ImportanceAntibiotic overuse contributes to adverse drug effects, increased costs, and antimicrobial resistance.ObjectiveTo 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 participantsIn 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.InterventionsPhysicians 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 measuresThe 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.ResultsOf 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 relevanceIn 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03776383.

Project description:ImportanceInterventions based on behavioral science might reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing.ObjectiveTo assess effects of behavioral interventions and rates of inappropriate (not guideline-concordant) antibiotic prescribing during ambulatory visits for acute respiratory tract infections.Design, setting, and participantsCluster randomized clinical trial conducted among 47 primary care practices in Boston and Los Angeles. Participants were 248 enrolled clinicians randomized to receive 0, 1, 2, or 3 interventions for 18 months. All clinicians received education on antibiotic prescribing guidelines on enrollment. Interventions began between November 1, 2011, and October 1, 2012. Follow-up for the latest-starting sites ended on April 1, 2014. Adult patients with comorbidities and concomitant infections were excluded.InterventionsThree behavioral interventions, implemented alone or in combination: suggested alternatives presented electronic order sets suggesting nonantibiotic treatments; accountable justification prompted clinicians to enter free-text justifications for prescribing antibiotics into patients' electronic health records; peer comparison sent emails to clinicians that compared their antibiotic prescribing rates with those of "top performers" (those with the lowest inappropriate prescribing rates).Main outcomes and measuresAntibiotic prescribing rates for visits with antibiotic-inappropriate diagnoses (nonspecific upper respiratory tract infections, acute bronchitis, and influenza) from 18 months preintervention to 18 months afterward, adjusting each intervention's effects for co-occurring interventions and preintervention trends, with random effects for practices and clinicians.ResultsThere were 14,753 visits (mean patient age, 47 years; 69% women) for antibiotic-inappropriate acute respiratory tract infections during the baseline period and 16,959 visits (mean patient age, 48 years; 67% women) during the intervention period. Mean antibiotic prescribing rates decreased from 24.1% at intervention start to 13.1% at intervention month 18 (absolute difference, -11.0%) for control practices; from 22.1% to 6.1% (absolute difference, -16.0%) for suggested alternatives (difference in differences, -5.0% [95% CI, -7.8% to 0.1%]; P = .66 for differences in trajectories); from 23.2% to 5.2% (absolute difference, -18.1%) for accountable justification (difference in differences, -7.0% [95% CI, -9.1% to -2.9%]; P < .001); and from 19.9% to 3.7% (absolute difference, -16.3%) for peer comparison (difference in differences, -5.2% [95% CI, -6.9% to -1.6%]; P < .001). There were no statistically significant interactions (neither synergy nor interference) between interventions.Conclusions and relevanceAmong primary care practices, the use of accountable justification and peer comparison as behavioral interventions resulted in lower rates of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01454947.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The treatment of upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) accounts for the majority of antibiotic prescriptions in primary care, although an antibiotic therapy is rarely indicated. Non-clinical factors, such as time pressure and the perceived patient expectations are considered to be reasons for prescribing antibiotics in cases where they are not indicated. The improper use of antibiotics, however, can promote resistance and cause serious side effects. The aim of the study was to clarify whether the antibiotic prescription rate for infections of the upper respiratory tract can be lowered by means of a short (2 x 2.25h) communication training based on the MAAS-Global-D for primary care physicians. METHODS:In total, 1554 primary care physicians were invited to participate in the study. The control group was formed from observational data. To estimate intervention effects we applied a combination of difference-in-difference (DiD) and statistical matching based on entropy balancing. We estimated a corresponding multi-level logistic regression model for the antibiotic prescribing decision of German primary care physicians for URTIs. RESULTS:Univariate estimates detected an 11-percentage-point reduction of prescriptions for the intervention group after the training. For the control group, a reduction of 4.7% was detected. The difference between both groups in the difference between the periods was -6.5% and statistically significant. The estimated effects were nearly identical to the effects estimated for the multi-level logistic regression model with applied matching. Furthermore, for the treatment of young women, the impact of the training on the reduction of antibiotic prescription was significantly stronger. CONCLUSIONS:Our results suggest that communication skills, implemented through a short communication training with the MAAS-Global-D-training, lead to a more prudent prescribing behavior of antibiotics for URTIs. Thereby, the MAAS-Global-D-training could not only avoid unnecessary side effects but could also help reducing the emergence of drug resistant bacteria. As a consequence of our study we suggest that communication training based on the MAAS-Global-D should be applied in the postgraduate training scheme of primary care physicians.

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.

Dataset Information

Effect of Antibiotic Prescription Audit and Feedback on Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Interventions

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Trial registration

Publications

Effect of Antibiotic Prescription Audit and Feedback on Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets