Dataset Information

Best practice guidance for antibiotic audit and feedback interventions in primary care: a modified Delphi study from the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial resistance: Primary Care Antibiotic Audit and Feedback Network (JPIAMR-PAAN).

ABSTRACT:

Background

Primary care is a critical partner for antimicrobial stewardship efforts given its high human antibiotic usage. Peer comparison audit and feedback (A&F) is often used to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. The design and implementation of A&F may impact its effectiveness. There are no best practice guidelines for peer comparison A&F in antibiotic prescribing in primary care.

Objective

To develop best practice guidelines for peer comparison A&F for antibiotic prescribing in primary care in high income countries by leveraging international expertise via the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance-Primary Care Antibiotic Audit and Feedback Network.

Methods

We used a modified Delphi process to achieve convergence of expert opinions on best practice statements for peer comparison A&F based on existing evidence and theory. Three rounds were performed, each with online surveys and virtual meetings to enable discussion and rating of each best practice statement. A five-point Likert scale was used to rate consensus with a median threshold score of 4 to indicate a consensus statement.

Results

The final set of guidelines include 13 best practice statements in four categories: general considerations (n = 3), selecting feedback recipients (n = 1), data and indicator selection (n = 4), and feedback delivery (n = 5).

Conclusion

We report an expert-derived best practice recommendations for designing and evaluating peer comparison A&F for antibiotic prescribing in primary care. These 13 statements can be used by A&F designers to optimize the impact of their quality improvement interventions, and improve antibiotic prescribing in primary care.

SUBMITTER: Schwartz KL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10387210 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Best practice guidance for antibiotic audit and feedback interventions in primary care: a modified Delphi study from the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial resistance: Primary Care Antibiotic Audit and Feedback Network (JPIAMR-PAAN).

Schwartz Kevin L KL Xu Alice X T AXT Alderson Sarah S Bjerrum Lars L Brehaut Jamie J Brown Benjamin C BC Bucher Heiner C HC De Sutter An A Francis Nick N Grimshaw Jeremy J Gunnarsson Ronny R Hoye Sigurd S Ivers Noah N Lecky Donna M DM Lindbæk Morten M Linder Jeffrey A JA Little Paul P Michalsen Benedikte Olsen BO O'Connor Denise D Pulcini Celine C Sundvall Pär-Daniel PD Lundgren Pia Touboul PT Verbakel Jan Y JY Verheij Theo J TJ

Antimicrobial resistance and infection control 20230729 1

<h4>Background</h4>Primary care is a critical partner for antimicrobial stewardship efforts given its high human antibiotic usage. Peer comparison audit and feedback (A&F) is often used to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. The design and implementation of A&F may impact its effectiveness. There are no best practice guidelines for peer comparison A&F in antibiotic prescribing in primary care.<h4>Objective</h4>To develop best practice guidelines for peer comparison A&F for antibiotic pr ...[more]

PMID: 37516892

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundMany primary care sites have implemented models to improve detection, diagnosis, and management of dementia, as per Canadian guidelines. The aim of this study is to describe the responses of clinicians, managers, and staff of sites that have implemented these models when presented with audit results, their insights on the factors that explain their results, their proposed solutions for improvement and how these align to one another.MethodsOne audit and feedback cycle was carried out in eight purposefully sampled sites in Ontario, Canada, that had previously implemented dementia care models. Audit consisted of a) chart review to assess quality of dementia care indicators, b) questionnaire to assess the physicians' knowledge, attitudes and practice toward dementia care, and c) semi-structured interviews to understand barriers and facilitators to implementing these models. Feedback was given to clinicians, managers, and staff in the form of graphic and oral presentations, followed by eight focus groups (one per site). Discussions revolved around: what audit results elicited more discussion from the participants, 2) their insights on the factors that explain their audit results, and 3) solutions they propose to improve dementia care. Deductive content and inductive thematic analyses, grounded in causal pathways models' theory was performed.FindingsThe audit and feedback process allowed the 63 participants to discuss many audit results and share their insights on a) organizational factors (lack of human resources, the importance of organized links with community services, clear roles and support from external memory clinics) and b) clinician factors (perceived competency practice and attitudes on dementia care), that could explain their audit results. Participants also provided solutions to improve dementia care in primary care (financial incentives, having clear pathways, adding tools to improve chart documentation, establish training on dementia care, and the possibility of benchmarking with other institutions). Proposed solutions were well aligned with their insights and further nuanced according to contextual details.ConclusionsThis study provides valuable information on solutions proposed by primary care clinicians, managers, and staff to improve dementia care in primary care. The solutions are grounded in clinical experience and will inform ongoing and future dementia strategies.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a significant variation among individual primary care providers in prescribing of potentially problematic, low-value medicines which cause avoidable patient harm. Audit and feedback is generally effective at improving prescribing. However, progress has been hindered by research waste, leading to unanswered questions about how to include audit and feedback for specific problems and circumstances. Trials of different ways of providing audit and feedback in implementation laboratories have been proposed as a way of improving population healthcare while generating robust evidence on feedback effects. However, there is limited experience in their design and delivery.AimTo explore priorities, feasibility, and ethical challenges of establishing a primary care prescribing audit and feedback implementation laboratory.Design and settingTwo-stage Delphi consensus process involving primary care pharmacy leads, audit and feedback researchers, and patient and public.MethodParticipants initially scored statements relating to priorities, feasibility, and ethical considerations for an implementation laboratory. These covered current feedback practice, priority topics for feedback, usefulness of feedback in improving prescribing and different types of prescribing data, acceptability and desirability of different organization levels of randomization, options for trial consent, different methods of delivering feedback, and interest in finding out how effective different ways of presenting feedback would be. After receiving collated results, participants then scored the items again. The consensus was defined using the GRADE criteria. The results were analyzed by group and overall score.ResultsFourteen participants reached consensus for 38 out of 55 statements. Addressing antibiotic and opioid prescribing emerged as the highest priorities for action. The panel supported statements around addressing high-priority prescribing issues, taking an "opt-out" approach to practice consent if waiving consent was not permitted, and randomizing at lower rather than higher organizational levels. Participants supported patient-level prescribing data and further research evaluating most of the different feedback methods we presented them with.ConclusionsThere is a good level of support for evaluating a wide range of potential enhancements to improve the effects of feedback on prescribing. The successful design and delivery of a primary care audit and feedback implementation laboratory depend on identifying shared priorities and addressing practical and ethical considerations.

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:BackgroundThe use of clinical performance feedback to support quality improvement (QI) activities is based on the sound rationale that measurement is necessary to improve quality of care. However, concerns persist about the reliability of this strategy, known as Audit and Feedback (A&F) to support QI. If successfully implemented, A&F should reflect an iterative, self-regulating QI process. Whether and how real-world A&F initiatives result in this type of feedback loop are scarcely reported. This study aimed to identify barriers or facilitators to implementation in a team-based primary care context.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with key informants from team-based primary care practices in Ontario, Canada. At the time of data collection, practices could have received up to three iterations of the voluntary A&F initiative. Interviews explored whether, how, and why practices used the feedback to guide their QI activities. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to code transcripts and the resulting frameworks were analyzed inductively to generate key themes.ResultsTwenty-five individuals representing 18 primary care teams participated in the study. Analysis of how the A&F intervention was used revealed that implementation reflected an incomplete feedback loop. Participation was facilitated by the reliance on an external resource to facilitate the practice audit. The frequency of feedback, concerns with data validity, the design of the feedback report, the resource requirements to participate, and the team relationship were all identified as barriers to implementation of A&F.ConclusionsThe implementation of a real-world, voluntary A&F initiative did not lead to desired QI activities despite substantial investments in performance measurement. In small primary care teams, it may take long periods of time to develop capacity for QI and future evaluations may reveal shifts in the implementation state of the initiative. Findings from the present study demonstrate that the potential mechanism of action of A&F may be deceptively clear; in practice, moving from measurement to action can be complex.

Project description:BackgroundThe Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has led the industry in measuring facility performance as a critical element in improving quality of care, investing substantial resources to develop and maintain valid and cost-effective measures. The External Peer Review Program (EPRP) of the VA is the official data source for monitoring facility performance, used to prioritize the quality areas needing most attention. Facility performance measurement has significantly improved preventive and chronic care, as well as overall quality; however, much variability still exists in levels of performance across measures and facilities. Audit and feedback (A&F), an important component of effective performance measurement, can help reduce this variability and improve overall performance. Previous research suggests that VA Medical Centers (VAMCs) with high EPRP performance scores tend to use EPRP data as a feedback source. However, the manner in which EPRP data are used as a feedback source by individual providers as well as service line, facility, and network leadership is not well understood. An in-depth understanding of mental models, strategies, and specific feedback process characteristics adopted by high-performing facilities is thus urgently needed.This research compares how leaders of high, low, and moderately performing VAMCs use clinical performance data from the EPRP as a feedback tool to maintain and improve quality of care.MethodsWe will conduct a qualitative, grounded theory analysis of up to 64 interviews using a novel method of sampling primary care, facility, and Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) leadership at high-, moderate-, and low-performing facilities. We will analyze interviews for evidence of cross-facility differences in perceptions of performance data usefulness and strategies for disseminating performance data evaluating performance, with particular attention to timeliness, individualization, and punitiveness of feedback delivery.DiscussionMost research examining feedback to improve provider and facility performance lacks a detailed understanding of the elements of effective feedback. This research will highlight the elements most commonly used at high-performing facilities and identify additional features of their successful feedback strategies not previously identified. Armed with this information, practices can implement more effective A&F interventions to improve quality of care.

Dataset Information

Best practice guidance for antibiotic audit and feedback interventions in primary care: a modified Delphi study from the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial resistance: Primary Care Antibiotic Audit and Feedback Network (JPIAMR-PAAN).

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Best practice guidance for antibiotic audit and feedback interventions in primary care: a modified Delphi study from the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial resistance: Primary Care Antibiotic Audit and Feedback Network (JPIAMR-PAAN).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets