Failure of a Best Practice Alert to Reduce Antibiotic Prescribing Rates for Acute Sinusitis Across an Integrated Health System in the Midwest.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance is a growing concern, and in recent years, there has been increased interest in ambulatory antimicrobial stewardship. Acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) is one of the most common outpatient diagnoses that results in an antibiotic prescription. OBJECTIVE: To determine if a best practice alert (BPA) will affect the percentage of oral antibiotic prescriptions for adults with ARS. METHODS: A prospective, pre/post study was initiated to evaluate the percentage of oral antibiotic prescriptions for ARS in 117 primary care clinics in the Midwest. Included in the study results were 16,570 adults who had an office visit for ARS: 8,106 patients from December 1, 2015, to February 28, 2016, were in the pre-intervention group without an active BPA, and 8,464 patients from December 1, 2016, to February 28, 2017, were in the post-intervention group when the BPA was active. The primary outcome was the number of oral antibiotic prescriptions for ARS compared with the number of office visits for ARS in the pre- and postintervention groups. RESULTS: The percentage of oral antibiotics prescribed for the pre- and postintervention groups were 94.8% and 94.3%, respectively (P = 0.152). The BPA displayed for 7,780 visits, prompting discontinuation of an antibiotic for 10 (0.1%) visits in the postintervention group. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that, although an electronic alert may be attractive to facilitate antimicrobial stewardship, it may be ineffective. These results warrant alternative measures to facilitate ambulatory antimicrobial stewardship. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Study concept and design were contributed by Hansen, D. Leedahl, and N. Leedahl. Hansen and N. Leedahl took the lead in data collection, with assistance from Carson and D. Leedahl. Data interpretation was performed by all the authors. The manuscript was written by Hansen, along with the other authors, and revised by all the authors.

Time trends (2006-2015) of quality indicators in EUSOMA-certified breast centres.

AIM OF THE STUDY: The European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) has fostered a voluntary certification process for breast centres to establish minimum standards and ensure specialist multidisciplinary care. Prospectively collected anonymous information on primary breast cancer cases diagnosed and treated in the units is transferred annually to a central EUSOMA data warehouse for continuous monitoring of quality indicators (QIs) to improve quality of care. Units have to comply with the EUSOMA Breast Centre guidelines and are audited by peers. The database was started in 2006 and includes over 110,000 cancers from breast centres located in Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Austria, The Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and Italy. The aim of the present study is assessing time trends of QIs in EUSOMA-certified breast centres over the decade 2006-2015. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Previously defined QIs were calculated for 22 EUSOMA-certified breast centres (46122 patients) during 2006-2015. RESULTS: On the average of all units, the minimum standard of care was achieved in 8 of 13 main EUSOMA QIs in 2006 and in all in 2015. All QIs, except removal of at least 10 lymph nodes at axillary clearance and oestrogen receptor-negative tumours (T > 1 cm or N+) receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, improved significantly in this period. The desirable target was reached for two QIs in 2006 and for 7 of 13 QIs in 2015. CONCLUSION: The EUSOMA model of audit and monitoring QIs functions well in different European health systems and results in better performance of QIs over the last decade. QIs should be evaluated and adapted on a regular basis, as guidelines change over time.

[Cancer research at the transition from bench to bedside]. / Die Krebsforschung am Ubergang vom Labor in die Klinik.

BACKGROUND: Despite great advances in basic oncology research, the situation in clinical oncology continues to be dissatisfying. Reasons for this include a lack of highly effective and specific types of treatment, late diagnosis of cancers (i. e., in advanced stages) and poor translation of new research results into clinical practice. BASIC SITUATION: Knowledge in cancer research has grown exponentially over the past 2 decades. While our understanding of cancer development at the molecular level continues to improve, the actual transfer of these findings into practice is lagging behind today's possibilities. Examples from the German Cancer Research Center ("Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum" [DKFZ]) and numerous other research institutes show that novel approaches in diagnostics and therapy do exist. SOLUTION: To close the gap between basic research and clinical practice, completely new organizational forms in oncology are needed. Intelligent models of integrated care of tumor patients shaped after US Comprehensive Cancer Centers may lead to fundamental improvements in clinical oncology, opening up a way to closely interlock research and clinical practice in order to create synergies for both sides. Such models are currently being established in different places in Germany, with the National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg occupying a special place due to its affiliation with the German Cancer Research Center. Moreover, collaboration with industry engaged in research needs to be intensified in order to advance new approaches in research to market readiness. OUTLOOK: Cancer medicine of the future will be more specific, more individual and more interdisciplinary than it is today. Cancer research, clinical oncology and industry engaged in research need to join forces in a strong alliance for the transfer of scientific findings into clinical application.