Dataset Information

Behavioral Nudges to Improve Audit and Feedback Report Opening Among Antibiotic Prescribers: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Peer comparison audit and feedback has demonstrated effectiveness in improving antibiotic prescribing practices, but only a minority of prescribers view their reports. We rigorously tested 3 behavioral nudging techniques delivered by email to improve report opening.

Methods

We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial among Ontario long-term care prescribers enrolled in an ongoing peer comparison audit and feedback program which includes data on their antibiotic prescribing patterns. Physicians were randomized to 1 of 8 possible sequences of intervention/control allocation to 3 different behavioral email nudges: a social peer comparison nudge (January 2020), a maintenance of professional certification incentive nudge (October 2020), and a prior participation nudge (January 2021). The primary outcome was feedback report opening; the primary analysis pooled the effects of all 3 nudging interventions.

Results

The trial included 421 physicians caring for >28 000 residents at 450 facilities. In the pooled analysis, physicians opened only 29.6% of intervention and 23.9% of control reports (odds ratio [OR], 1.51 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.10-2.07], P = .011); this difference remained significant after accounting for physician characteristics and clustering (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.74 [95% CI, 1.24-2.45], P = .0014). Of individual nudging techniques, the prior participation nudge was associated with a significant increase in report opening (OR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.06-2.47], P = .026; aOR, 2.16 [95% CI, 1.33-3.50], P = .0018). In the pooled analysis, nudges were also associated with accessing more report pages (aOR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.14-1.43], P < .001).

Conclusions

Enhanced nudging strategies modestly improved report opening, but more work is needed to optimize physician engagement with audit and feedback.

Clinical trials registration

NCT04187742.

SUBMITTER: Daneman N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8982784 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Behavioral Nudges to Improve Audit and Feedback Report Opening Among Antibiotic Prescribers: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Daneman Nick N Lee Samantha S Bai Heming H Bell Chaim M CM Bronskill Susan E SE Campitelli Michael A MA Dobell Gail G Fu Longdi L Garber Gary G Ivers Noah N Kumar Matthew M Lam Jonathan M C JMC Langford Bradley B Laur Celia C Morris Andrew M AM Mulhall Cara L CL Pinto Ruxandra R Saxena Farah E FE Schwartz Kevin L KL Brown Kevin A KA

Open forum infectious diseases 20220302 5

<h4>Background</h4>Peer comparison audit and feedback has demonstrated effectiveness in improving antibiotic prescribing practices, but only a minority of prescribers view their reports. We rigorously tested 3 behavioral nudging techniques delivered by email to improve report opening.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial among Ontario long-term care prescribers enrolled in an ongoing peer comparison audit and feedback program which includes data on their antibiotic ...[more]

PMID: 35392461

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDentists 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 findingsAll 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.ConclusionsA&F derived from routinely collected datasets led to a significant reduction in the antibiotic prescribing rate of dentists.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN49204710.

Project description:BackgroundThe success of antimicrobial stewardship is dependent on how often it is completed and which antimicrobials are targeted. We evaluated the impact of an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) in three non-ICU settings where all systemic antibiotics, regardless of spectrum, were targeted on the first weekday after initiation.MethodsProspective audit and feedback (PAAF) was initiated on the surgical, respiratory, and medical wards of a community hospital on July 1, 2010, October 1, 2010, and April 1, 2012, respectively. We evaluated rates of total antibiotic use, measured in days on therapy (DOTs), among all patients admitted to the wards before and after PAAF initiation using an interrupted time series analysis. Changes in antibiotic costs, rates of C. difficile infection (CDI), mortality, readmission, and length of stay were evaluated using univariate analyses.ResultsTime series modelling demonstrated that total antibiotic use decreased (± standard error) by 100 ± 51 DOTs/1,000 patient-days on the surgical wards (p = 0.049), 100 ± 46 DOTs/1,000 patient-days on the respiratory ward (p = 0.029), and 91 ± 33 DOTs/1,000 patient-days on the medical wards (p = 0.006) immediately following PAAF initiation. Reductions in antibiotic use were sustained up to 50 months after intervention initiation, and were accompanied by decreases in antibiotic costs. There were no significant changes to patient outcomes on the surgical and respiratory wards following intervention initiation. On the medical wards, however, readmission increased from 4.6 to 5.6 per 1,000 patient-days (p = 0.043), while mortality decreased from 7.4 to 5.0 per 1,000 patient-days (p = 0.001). CDI rates showed a non-significant declining trend after PAAF initiation.ConclusionsASPs can lead to cost-effective, sustained reductions in total antibiotic use when interventions are conducted early in the course of therapy and target all antibiotics. Shifting to such a model may help strengthen the effectiveness of ASPs in non-ICU settings.

Project description:BackgroundHealth care delivery organizations lack evidence-based strategies for using quality measurement data to improve performance. Audit and feedback (A&F), the delivery of clinical performance summaries to providers, demonstrates the potential for large effects on clinical practice but is currently implemented as a blunt one size fits most intervention. Each provider in a care setting typically receives a performance summary of identical metrics in a common format despite the growing recognition that precisionizing interventions hold significant promise in improving their impact. A precision approach to A&F prioritizes the display of information in a single metric that, for each recipient, carries the highest value for performance improvement, such as when the metric's level drops below a peer benchmark or minimum standard for the first time, thereby revealing an actionable performance gap. Furthermore, precision A&F uses an optimal message format (including framing and visual displays) based on what is known about the recipient and the intended gist meaning being communicated to improve message interpretation while reducing the cognitive processing burden. Well-established psychological principles, frameworks, and theories form a feedback intervention knowledge base to achieve precision A&F. From an informatics perspective, precision A&F requires a knowledge-based system that enables mass customization by representing knowledge configurable at the group and individual levels.ObjectiveThis study aims to implement and evaluate a demonstration system for precision A&F in anesthesia care and to assess the effect of precision feedback emails on care quality and outcomes in a national quality improvement consortium.MethodsWe propose to achieve our aims by conducting 3 studies: a requirements analysis and preferences elicitation study using human-centered design and conjoint analysis methods, a software service development and implementation study, and a cluster randomized controlled trial of a precision A&F service with a concurrent process evaluation. This study will be conducted with the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group, a national anesthesia quality improvement consortium with >60 member hospitals in >20 US states. This study will extend the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group quality improvement infrastructure by using existing data and performance measurement processes.ResultsThe proposal was funded in September 2021 with a 4-year timeline. Data collection for Aim 1 began in March 2022. We plan for a 24-month trial timeline, with the intervention period of the trial beginning in March 2024.ConclusionsThe proposed aims will collectively demonstrate a precision feedback service developed using an open-source technical infrastructure for computable knowledge management. By implementing and evaluating a demonstration system for precision feedback, we create the potential to observe the conditions under which feedback interventions are effective.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/34990.

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:BackgroundUnnecessary antibiotic prescriptions in primary care are common and contribute to antimicrobial resistance in the population. Audit and feedback (A&F) on antibiotic prescribing to primary care can improve the appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing, but the optimal approach is uncertain. We performed two pragmatic randomized controlled trials of different approaches to audit and feedback. The trial results showed that A&F was associated with significantly reducing antibiotic prescribing. Still, the effect size was small, and the modifications to the A&F interventions tested in the trials were not associated with any change. Herein, we report a theory-informed qualitative process evaluation to explore potential mechanisms underlying the observed effects.MethodsOntario family physicians in the intervention arms of both trials who were sent A&F letters were invited for one-on-one interviews. Purposive sampling was used to seek variation across interested participants in personal and practice characteristics. Qualitative analysis utilized inductive and deductive techniques informed by the Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory.ResultsModifications to the intervention design tested in the trial did not alter prescribing patterns beyond the changes made in response to the A&F overall for various reasons. Change in antibiotic prescribing in response to A&F depended on whether it led to the formation of specific intentions and whether those intentions translated to particular behaviours. Those without intentions to change tended to feel that their unique clinical context was not represented in the A&F. Those with intentions but without specific actions taken tended to express a lack of self-efficacy for avoiding a prescription in contexts with time constraints and/or without an ongoing patient relationship. Many participants noted that compared to overall prescribing, A&F on antibiotic prescription duration was perceived as new information and easily actionable.ConclusionOur findings indicate that contextual factors, including the types of patients and the setting where they are seen, affect how clinicians react to audit and feedback. These results suggest a need to test tailored feedback reports that reflect the context of how, where, and why physicians prescribe antibiotics so that they might be perceived as more personal and more actionable.Trial registrationClinical Trial registration IDs: NCT04594200, NCT05044052.

Dataset Information

Behavioral Nudges to Improve Audit and Feedback Report Opening Among Antibiotic Prescribers: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical trials registration

Publications

Behavioral Nudges to Improve Audit and Feedback Report Opening Among Antibiotic Prescribers: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets