Population-Wide Peer Comparison Audit and Feedback to Reduce Antibiotic Initiation and Duration in Long-Term Care Facilities with Embedded Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic overprescribing in long-term care settings is driven by prescriber preferences and is associated with preventable harms for residents. We aimed to determine whether peer comparison audit and feedback reporting for physicians reduces antibiotic overprescribing among residents. METHODS: We employed a province wide, difference-in-differences study of antibiotic prescribing audit and feedback, with an embedded pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) across all long-term care facilities in Ontario, Canada, in 2019. The study year included 1238 physicians caring for 96 185 residents. In total, 895 (72%) physicians received no feedback; 343 (28%) were enrolled to receive audit and feedback and randomized 1:1 to static or dynamic reports. The primary outcomes were proportion of residents initiated on an antibiotic and proportion of antibiotics prolonged beyond 7 days per quarter. RESULTS: Among all residents, between the first quarter of 2018 and last quarter of 2019, there were temporal declines in antibiotic initiation (28.4% to 21.3%) and prolonged duration (34.4% to 29.0%). Difference-in-differences analysis confirmed that feedback was associated with a greater decline in prolonged antibiotics (adjusted difference -2.65%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -4.93 to -.28%, P = .026), but there was no significant difference in antibiotic initiation. The reduction in antibiotic durations was associated with 335 912 fewer days of treatment. The embedded RCT detected no differences in outcomes between the dynamic and static reports. CONCLUSIONS: Peer comparison audit and feedback is a pragmatic intervention that can generate small relative reductions in the use of antibiotics for prolonged durations that translate to large reductions in antibiotic days of treatment across populations. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT03807466.

Engagement is a necessary condition to test audit and feedback design features: results of a pragmatic, factorial, cluster-randomized trial with an embedded process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: While audit & feedback (A&F) is an effective implementation intervention, the design elements which maximize effectiveness are unclear. Partnering with a healthcare quality advisory organization already delivering feedback, we conducted a pragmatic, 2 × 2 factorial, cluster-randomized trial to test the impact of variations in two factors: (A) the benchmark used for comparison and (B) information framing. An embedded process evaluation explored hypothesized mechanisms of effect. METHODS: Eligible physicians worked in nursing homes in Ontario, Canada, and had voluntarily signed up to receive the report. Groups of nursing homes sharing physicians were randomized to (A) physicians' individual prescribing rates compared to top-performing peers (the top quartile) or the provincial median and (B) risk-framed information (reporting the number of patients prescribed high-risk medication) or benefit-framed information (reporting the number of patients not prescribed). We hypothesized that the top quartile comparator and risk-framing would lead to greater practice improvements. The primary outcome was the mean number of central nervous system-active medications per resident per month. Primary analyses compared the four arms at 6 months post-intervention. Factorial analyses were secondary. The process evaluation comprised a follow-up questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-seven physicians (152 clusters) were randomized: 67 to arm 1 (median benchmark, benefit framing), 65 to arm 2 (top quartile benchmark, benefit framing), 75 to arm 3 (median benchmark, risk framing), and 60 to arm 4 (top quartile benchmark, risk framing). There were no significant differences in the primary outcome across arms or for each factor. However, engagement was low (27-31% of physicians across arms downloaded the report). The process evaluation indicated that both factors minimally impacted the proposed mechanisms. However, risk-framed feedback was perceived as more actionable and more compatible with current workflows, whilst a higher target might encourage behaviour change when physicians identified with the comparator. CONCLUSIONS: Risk framing and a top quartile comparator have the potential to achieve change. Further work to establish the strategies most likely to enhance A&F engagement, particularly with physicians who may be most likely to benefit from feedback, is required to support meaningfully addressing intricate research questions concerning the design of A&F. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02979964 . Registered 29 November 2016.

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

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.

Audit feedback interventions to address high-risk prescriptions in long-term care homes: a costing study and return on investment analysis.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback is a common implementation strategy, but few studies describe its costs. 'MyPractice' is a province-wide audit and feedback initiative to improve prescribing in nursing homes. This study sought to estimate the costs of 'MyPractice' and assess whether the financial benefit of 'MyPractice' offsets those costs. METHODS: We conducted a costing study from the perspective of the Ontario government. Total cost of 'MyPractice' was calculated as the sum of the costs of producing and disseminating the reports (covering three report releases) which were obtained from Ontario Health staff interviews and document reviews. Return on investment (ROI) was calculated as the ratio of net cost-savings and the intervention cost. Cost savings were based on the effectiveness of 'MyPractice' derived from a published cohort study. Cost-savings attributable to 'MyPractice' were estimated from the changes in the rates of antipsychotics over time between physicians who signed up and viewed the reports and those who did not sign up to the reports. RESULTS: Total intervention costs were C$223,691 (C$838 per physician and C$74,564 per release). Costs incurred during the development phase accounted for 74% of the total cost (C$166,117), while implementation costs for three report releases were responsible for 26% of the total costs (C$57,575). The ROI for every C$1 spent on the 'MyPractice' intervention was 1.02 (95% CI 0.51, 1.93) for three report releases. CONCLUSION: 'MyPractice' report offers a good return on investment and the value for money could improve with greater number of report releases.

Improving antibiotic initiation and duration prescribing among nursing home physicians using an audit and feedback intervention: a theory-informed qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: In nursing homes, 25%-75% of antibiotic days of treatment are inappropriate or unnecessary and are often continued for longer durations than necessary. In Ontario, physicians can receive a provincial audit and feedback report that provides individualised, confidential, data about their antibiotic prescribing. Objectives of this study were to explore antibiotic prescribing of nursing home physicians and the influence of the report. METHODS: All physicians who received a personalised MyPractice: Long-Term Care report from Ontario Health (Quality) (OH(Q)) in January 2019 (n=361) were eligible to participate in semistructured telephone interviews that were recorded then transcribed verbatim. Recruitment emails were sent from OH(Q) until saturation of ideas. Analysis was conducted by two team members inductively, then deductively using the theoretical domains framework, a comprehensive, theory-informed framework to classify determinants of specific behaviours. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with n=18 physicians; 78% (n=14) were men, practising for an average of 27 years, with 18 years of experience working in nursing homes. Physicians worked in a median of 2 facilities (range 1-6), with 72% (n=13) in an urban setting. 56% (n=10) were medical directors for at least one home. Professional role and identity impacted all aspects of antibiotic prescribing. Key roles included being an 'Appropriate prescriber', an 'Educator' and a 'Change driver'. For antibiotic initiation, these roles interacted with Knowledge, Skills, Beliefs about consequence, Beliefs about capabilities, and Social influence to determine the resulting prescribing behaviour. When considering the impact of interacting with the report, participants' perceived roles interacted with Reinforcement, Social influence, and Intention. Environmental context and resources was an overarching domain. CONCLUSION: This theory-informed approach is being used to inform upcoming versions of existing audit and feedback initiatives. Appealing to the role that prescribers see themselves offers a unique opportunity to encourage desired changes, such as providing tools for physicians to be Educators and facilitating, particularly medical directors, to be Change drivers.

Enhancing Quality Care in Ontario Long-Term Care Homes Through Audit and Feedback for Physicians.

The province of Ontario in Canada is an example of a jurisdiction that is using a specific quality improvement mechanism, known as "audit and feedback," to help clinicians enhance the care they provide to long-term care (LTC) home residents. This program, launched in 2015, is unique in that the reports are provided across an entire jurisdiction. These reports were co-designed with clinicians, including medical directors, scientists, and other stakeholders, and are updated regularly to maintain their relevance to medical practice in LTC. The data for the reports is calculated using record linkage with available administrative data sources. The reports are updated with new data 4 times each year and emailed directly to physicians who have requested their report. The reports are designed to have an overall dashboard summarizing the practice level data with a comparison to all physicians in Ontario. More detailed information on their data such as trend data and resources for quality improvement are found in subsequent pages of the report. These reports are a tool to support physicians in quality improvement efforts in their LTC practice. We believe the role of a medical director is very important in both the uptake and use of these reports as the medical director would act as a trusted advisor who can influence quality of care overall within an LTC home. We are also testing a new format for delivering the reports in an interactive online format that enables more options for viewing practice data. Initial evaluation of these reports shows that there is a statistically significant impact on reducing the prescription of antipsychotic medications in LTC homes. In future, we hope to see a larger effect on the latest topic included in the reports: antibiotic prescribing.

Effectiveness of confidential reports to physicians on their prescribing of antipsychotic medications in nursing homes.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic medication use in nursing homes is associated with potential for harms. In Ontario, Canada, an agency of the provincial government offers nursing home physicians quarterly audit and feedback on their antipsychotic prescribing. We compared the characteristics of physicians who did and did not engage with the intervention, and assessed early changes in prescribing. METHODS: This population-level, retrospective cohort study used linked administrative databases to track prescribing practices in nursing homes pre-intervention (baseline), immediately post-initiative (3 months), and at follow-up (6 months). Exposure variables identified whether a physician signed up to participate (or not) or viewed the feedback following sign up (or not). Differences in the proportion of days that residents received antipsychotic medications at 6 months compared to baseline by exposure(s) were assessed using a linear mixed effects regression analysis to adjust for a range of resident, physician, and nursing home factors. Benzodiazepine and statin prescribing were assessed as a balance and tracer measures, respectively. RESULTS: Of 944 eligible physicians, 210 (22.3%) signed up to recieve the feedback report and 132 (13.9%) viewed their feedback. Physicians who signed up for feedback were more likely to have graduated from a Canadian medical school, work in urban nursing homes, and care for a larger number of residents. The clinical and functional characteristics of residents were similar across physician exposure groups. At 6 months, antipsychotic prescribing had decreased in all exposure groups. Those who viewed their feedback report had a signicantly greater reduction in antipsychotic prescribing than those who did not sign up (0.94% patient-days exposed; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.54%, p = 0.002). Trends in prescribing patterns across exposure groups for benzodiazepines and statins were not statistically significant. INTERPRETATION: Almost a quarter of eligible physicians engaged early in a voluntary audit and feedback intervention related to antipsychotic prescribing in nursing homes. Those who viewed their feedback achieved a small but statistically significant change in prescribing, equivalent to approximately 14,000 fewer days that nursing home residents received antipsychotic medications over 6 months. This study adds to the literature regarding the role of audit and feedback interventions to improve quality of care.

Pituitary growth hormone and growth hormone-releasing hormone receptor genes and associations with mammographic measures and serum growth hormone.

BACKGROUND: Mammographic density is a strong risk factor for breast cancer that is heritable and associated with blood levels of growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I). We tested single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in pituitary growth hormone (GH1) and growth hormone-releasing hormone receptor (GHRHR) genes for an association with mammographic density, hormones of the growth hormone/IGF-I axis, and anthropometric variables. METHODS: Mammograms from 348 women were measured using a computer-assisted method, blood collected, and DNA extracted. The SNPs genotyped were GH1 -57G>T, GH1 -75G >A, and GHRHR A57T. ANOVA and covariance were used to examine associations, adjusted for age, body mass index, ethnicity, and menopausal status, between each SNP and three measures of the mammogram: percent density, total dense area, and total nondense area. Similarly, the SNPs were tested for associations with serum growth hormone, IGF-I, IGFBP3, prolactin, and anthropometric variables. RESULTS: GH1 -57G >T and GH1 -75G >A were both associated with percent density and total nondense area. GH1 -57T homozygotes had 5.2 more mean adjusted percent density than other subjects combined (P = 0.03) and 16.2 cm(2) (14.6%) less nondense area (P = 0.01). GH1 -75A homozygotes had 3.4 more percent density than subjects with at least one G allele (P = 0.04) and also had 32% higher serum growth hormone levels (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: We have found associations between mammographic density and two SNPs in the pituitary growth hormone gene, one of them also associated with serum growth hormone levels. These findings suggest that the GH1 gene may also influence breast cancer risk.