Protocol for a parallel cluster randomized trial of a participatory tailored approach to reduce overuse of antibiotics at hospital discharge: the ROAD home trial.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic overuse at hospital discharge is common, costly, and harmful. While discharge-specific antibiotic stewardship interventions are effective, they are resource-intensive and often infeasible for hospitals with resource constraints. This weakness impacts generalizability of stewardship interventions and has health equity implications as not all patients have access to the benefits of stewardship based on where they receive care. There may be different pathways to improve discharge antibiotic prescribing that vary widely in feasibility. Supporting hospitals in selecting interventions tailored to their context may be an effective approach to feasibly reduce antibiotic overuse at discharge across diverse hospitals. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the Reducing Overuse of Antibiotics at Discharge Home multicomponent implementation strategy ("ROAD Home") on antibiotic overuse at discharge for community-acquired pneumonia and urinary tract infection. METHODS: This 4-year two-arm parallel cluster-randomized trial will include three phases: baseline (23 months), intervention (12 months), and postintervention (12 months). Forty hospitals recruited from the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium will undergo covariate-constrained randomization with half randomized to the ROAD Home implementation strategy and half to a "stewardship as usual" control. ROAD Home is informed by the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services Framework and includes (1) a baseline needs assessment to create a tailored suite of potential stewardship interventions, (2) supported decision-making in selecting interventions to implement, and (3) external facilitation following an implementation blueprint. The primary outcome is baseline-adjusted days of antibiotic overuse at discharge. Secondary outcomes include 30-day patient outcomes and antibiotic-associated adverse events. A mixed-methods concurrent process evaluation will identify contextual factors influencing the implementation of tailored interventions, and assess implementation outcomes including acceptability, feasibility, fidelity, and sustainment. DISCUSSION: Reducing antibiotic overuse at discharge across hospitals with varied resources requires tailoring of interventions. This trial will assess whether a multicomponent implementation strategy that supports hospitals in selecting evidence-based stewardship interventions tailored to local context leads to reduced overuse of antibiotics at discharge. Knowledge gained during this study could inform future efforts to implement stewardship in diverse hospitals and promote equity in access to the benefits of quality improvement initiatives. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT06106204 on 10/30/23.

Small and Large Animal Veterinarian Perceptions of Antimicrobial Use Metrics for Hospital-Based Stewardship in the United States.

Background: Robust measurement and tracking of antimicrobial use (AMU) is a fundamental component of stewardship interventions. Feeding back AMU metrics to individual clinicians is a common approach to changing prescribing behavior. Metrics must be meaningful and comprehensible to clinicians. Little is known about how veterinary clinicians working in the United States (US) hospital setting think about AMU metrics for antimicrobial stewardship. Objective: To identify hospital-based veterinary clinicians' attitudes toward audit and feedback of AMU metrics, their perceptions of different AMU metrics, and their response to receiving an individualized prescribing report. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with veterinarians working at two hospitals in the Eastern US. Interviews elicited perceptions of antimicrobial stewardship in veterinary medicine. Respondents were shown a personalized AMU Report characterizing their prescribing patterns relative to their peers and were asked to respond. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the framework method with matrices. Results: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 34 veterinary clinicians (22 small animal and 12 large animal). Respondents generally felt positive about the reports and were interested in seeing how their prescribing compared to that of their peers. Many respondents expressed doubt that the reports accurately captured the complexities of their prescribing decisions and found metrics associated with animal daily doses (ADDs) confusing. Only 13 (38.2%) respondents felt the reports would change how they used antimicrobials. When asked how the impact of the reports could be optimized, respondents recommended providing a more detailed explanation of how the AMU metrics were derived, education prior to report roll-out, guidance on how to interpret the metrics, and development of meaningful benchmarks for goal-setting. Conclusions: These findings provide important insight that can be used to design veterinary-specific AMU metrics as part of a stewardship intervention that are meaningful to clinicians and more likely to promote judicious prescribing.

Prescriber perceptions of fluoroquinolones, extended-spectrum cephalosporins, and Clostridioides difficile infection.

BACKGROUND: Fluoroquinolones (FQs) and extended-spectrum cephalosporins (ESCs) are associated with higher risk of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). Decreasing the unnecessary use of FQs and ESCs is a goal of antimicrobial stewardship. Understanding how prescribers perceive the risks and benefits of FQs and ESCs is needed. METHODS: We conducted interviews with clinicians from 4 hospitals. Interviews elicited respondent perceptions about the risk of ESCs, FQs, and CDI. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a flexible coding approach. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 64 respondents (38 physicians, 7 nurses, 6 advance practice providers, and 13 pharmacists). ESCs and FQs were perceived to have many benefits, including infrequent dosing, breadth of coverage, and greater patient adherence after hospital discharge. Prescribers stated that it was easy to make decisions about these drugs, so they were especially appealing to use in the context of time pressures. They described having difficulty discontinuing these drugs when prescribed by others due to inertia and fear. Prescribers were skeptical about targeting specific drugs as a stewardship approach and felt that the risk of a negative outcome from under treatment of a suspected bacterial infection was a higher priority than the prevention of CDI. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribers in this study perceived many advantages to using ESCs and FQs, especially under conditions of time pressure and uncertainty. In making decisions about these drugs, prescribers balance risk and benefit, and they believed that the risk of CDI was acceptable in compared with the risk of undertreatment.