Changes in the Appropriateness of US Outpatient Antibiotic Prescribing After the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outbreak: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis of 2016-2021 Data.

BACKGROUND: No national study has evaluated changes in the appropriateness of US outpatient antibiotic prescribing across all conditions and age groups after the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in March 2020. METHODS: This was an interrupted time series analysis of Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart Database, a national commercial and Medicare Advantage claims database. Analyses included prescriptions for antibiotics dispensed to children and adults enrolled during each month during 2017-2021. For each prescription, we applied our previously developed antibiotic appropriateness classification scheme to International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes on medical claims occurring on or during the 3 days prior to dispensing. Outcomes included the monthly proportion of antibiotic prescriptions that were inappropriate and the monthly proportion of enrollees with ≥1 inappropriate prescription. Using segmented regression models, we assessed for level and slope changes in outcomes in March 2020. RESULTS: Analyses included 37 566 581 enrollees, of whom 19 154 059 (51.0%) were female. The proportion of enrollees with ≥1 inappropriate prescription decreased in March 2020 (level decrease: -0.80 percentage points [95% confidence interval {CI}, -1.09% to -.51%]) and subsequently increased (slope increase: 0.02 percentage points per month [95% CI, .01%-.03%]), partly because overall antibiotic dispensing rebounded and partly because the proportion of antibiotic prescriptions that were inappropriate increased (slope increase: 0.11 percentage points per month [95% CI, .04%-.18%]). In December 2021, the proportion of enrollees with ≥1 inappropriate prescription equaled the corresponding proportion in December 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an initial decline, the proportion of enrollees exposed to inappropriate antibiotics returned to baseline levels by December 2021. Findings underscore the continued importance of outpatient antibiotic stewardship initiatives.

Behavioural 'nudging' interventions to reduce low-value care for low back pain in the emergency department (NUDG-ED): protocol for a 2×2 factorial, before-after, cluster randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: Opioids and imaging are considered low-value care for most people with low back pain. Yet around one in three people presenting to the emergency department (ED) will receive imaging, and two in three will receive an opioid. NUDG-ED aims to determine the effectiveness of two different behavioural 'nudge' interventions on low-value care for ED patients with low back pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: NUDG-ED is a 2×2 factorial, open-label, before-after, cluster randomised controlled trial. The trial includes 8 ED sites in Sydney, Australia. Participants will be ED clinicians who manage back pain, and patients who are 18 years or over presenting to ED with musculoskeletal back pain. EDs will be randomly assigned to receive (i) patient nudges, (ii) clinician nudges, (iii) both interventions or (iv) no nudge control. The primary outcome will be the proportion of encounters in ED for musculoskeletal back pain where a person received a non-indicated lumbar imaging test, an opioid at discharge or both. We will require 2416 encounters over a 9-month study period (3-month before period and 6-month after period) to detect an absolute difference of 10% in use of low-value care due to either nudge, with 80% power, alpha set at 0.05 and assuming an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.10, and an intraperiod correlation of 0.09. Patient-reported outcome measures will be collected in a subsample of patients (n≥456) 1 week after their initial ED visit. To estimate effects, we will use a multilevel regression model, with a random effect for cluster and patient, a fixed effect indicating the group assignment of each cluster and a fixed effect of time. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has ethical approval from Southwestern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/ETH00472). We will disseminate the results of this trial via media, presenting at conferences and scientific publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12623001000695.

Clinical Decision Support for Hypertension Management in Chronic Kidney Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects 37 million adults in the United States, and for patients with CKD, hypertension is a key risk factor for adverse outcomes, such as kidney failure, cardiovascular events, and death. Objective: To evaluate a computerized clinical decision support (CDS) system for the management of uncontrolled hypertension in patients with CKD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multiclinic, randomized clinical trial randomized primary care practitioners (PCPs) at a primary care network, including 15 hospital-based, ambulatory, and community health center-based clinics, through a stratified, matched-pair randomization approach February 2021 to February 2022. All adult patients with a visit to a PCP in the last 2 years were eligible and those with evidence of CKD and hypertension were included. Intervention: The intervention consisted of a CDS system based on behavioral economic principles and human-centered design methods that delivered tailored, evidence-based recommendations, including initiation or titration of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors. The patients in the control group received usual care from PCPs with the CDS system operating in silent mode. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the change in mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) between baseline and 180 days compared between groups. The primary analysis was a repeated measures linear mixed model, using SBP at baseline, 90 days, and 180 days in an intention-to-treat repeated measures model to account for missing data. Secondary outcomes included blood pressure (BP) control and outcomes such as percentage of patients who received an action that aligned with the CDS recommendations. Results: The study included 174 PCPs and 2026 patients (mean [SD] age, 75.3 [0.3] years; 1223 [60.4%] female; mean [SD] SBP at baseline, 154.0 [14.3] mm Hg), with 87 PCPs and 1029 patients randomized to the intervention and 87 PCPs and 997 patients randomized to usual care. Overall, 1714 patients (84.6%) were treated for hypertension at baseline. There were 1623 patients (80.1%) with an SBP measurement at 180 days. From the linear mixed model, there was a statistically significant difference in mean SBP change in the intervention group compared with the usual care group (change, -14.6 [95% CI, -13.1 to -16.0] mm Hg vs -11.7 [-10.2 to -13.1] mm Hg; P = .005). There was no difference in the percentage of patients who achieved BP control in the intervention group compared with the control group (50.4% [95% CI, 46.5% to 54.3%] vs 47.1% [95% CI, 43.3% to 51.0%]). More patients received an action aligned with the CDS recommendations in the intervention group than in the usual care group (49.9% [95% CI, 45.1% to 54.8%] vs 34.6% [95% CI, 29.8% to 39.4%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that implementing this computerized CDS system could lead to improved management of uncontrolled hypertension and potentially improved clinical outcomes at the population level for patients with CKD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03679247.

Use of Telehealth Information for Early Detection: Insights From the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Objectives. To examine whether the addition of telehealth data to existing surveillance infrastructure can improve forecasts of cases and mortality. Methods. In this observational study, we compared accuracy of 14-day forecasts using real-time data available to the National Syndromic Surveillance Program (standard forecasts) to forecasts that also included telehealth information (telehealth forecasts). The study was performed in a national telehealth service provider in 2020 serving 50 US states and the District of Columbia. Results. Among 10.5 million telemedicine encounters, 169 672 probable COVID-19 cases were diagnosed by 5050 clinicians, with a rate between 0.79 and 47.8 probable cases per 100 000 encounters per day (mean = 8.37; SD = 10.75). Publicly reported case counts ranged from 0.5 to 237 916 (mean: 53 913; SD = 47 466) and 0 to 2328 deaths (mean = 1035; SD = 550) per day. Telehealth-based forecasts improved 14-day case forecasting accuracy by 1.8 percentage points to 30.9% (P = .06) and mortality forecasting by 6.4 percentage points to 26.9% (P < .048). Conclusions. Modest improvements in forecasting can be gained from adding telehealth data to syndromic surveillance infrastructure. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(2):218-225. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307499).

Reducing Care Overuse in Older Patients Using Professional Norms and Accountability : A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Effective strategies are needed to curtail overuse that may lead to harm. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of clinician decision support redirecting attention to harms and engaging social and reputational concerns on overuse in older primary care patients. DESIGN: 18-month, single-blind, pragmatic, cluster randomized trial, constrained randomization. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04289753). SETTING: 60 primary care internal medicine, family medicine and geriatrics practices within a health system from 1 September 2020 to 28 February 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 371 primary care clinicians and their older adult patients from participating practices. INTERVENTION: Behavioral science-informed, point-of-care, clinical decision support tools plus brief case-based education addressing the 3 primary clinical outcomes (187 clinicians from 30 clinics) were compared with brief case-based education alone (187 clinicians from 30 clinics). Decision support was designed to increase salience of potential harms, convey social norms, and promote accountability. MEASUREMENTS: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in men aged 76 years and older without previous prostate cancer, urine testing for nonspecific reasons in women aged 65 years and older, and overtreatment of diabetes with hypoglycemic agents in patients aged 75 years and older and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) less than 7%. RESULTS: At randomization, mean clinic annual PSA testing, unspecified urine testing, and diabetes overtreatment rates were 24.9, 23.9, and 16.8 per 100 patients, respectively. After 18 months of intervention, the intervention group had lower adjusted difference-in-differences in annual rates of PSA testing (-8.7 [95% CI, -10.2 to -7.1]), unspecified urine testing (-5.5 [CI, -7.0 to -3.6]), and diabetes overtreatment (-1.4 [CI, -2.9 to -0.03]) compared with education only. Safety measures did not show increased emergency care related to urinary tract infections or hyperglycemia. An HbA1c greater than 9.0% was more common with the intervention among previously overtreated diabetes patients (adjusted difference-in-differences, 0.47 per 100 patients [95% CI, 0.04 to 1.20]). LIMITATION: A single health system limits generalizability; electronic health data limit ability to differentiate between overtesting and underdocumentation. CONCLUSION: Decision support designed to increase clinicians' attention to possible harms, social norms, and reputational concerns reduced unspecified testing compared with offering traditional case-based education alone. Small decreases in diabetes overtreatment may also result in higher rates of uncontrolled diabetes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Aging.

Antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: Patterns in a nationwide telehealth service provider.

We examined 3,046,538 acute respiratory infection (ARI) encounters with 6,103 national telehealth physicians from January 2019 to October 2021. The antibiotic prescribing rates were 44% for all ARIs; 46% were antibiotic appropriate; 65% were potentially appropriate; 19% resulted from inappropriate diagnoses; and 10% were related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis.

Venous thromboembolism prevention in cancer care: implementation strategies to address underuse.

Background: Evidenced-based interventions have been developed to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in ambulatory patients with cancer, including VTE-risk assessment for all patients and targeted primary thromboprophylaxis for high-risk patients. Despite supportive evidence and recommendations, oncologists rarely assess VTE risk or provide primary prophylaxis. Our previous work identified barriers and facilitators to using VTE prevention interventions in oncology practice. Objectives: To identify potential strategies that address the identified barriers and leverage facilitators to achieve successful implementation of evidence-based interventions for VTE prevention in oncology practice. Methods: We used the Implementation Research Logic Model, an implementation science framework, to map the relationships among barriers and facilitators, feasible and effective implementation strategies, and implementation and clinical outcomes that will be used to evaluate the implementation strategies. Results: We identified 12 discrete implementation strategies (eg, conducting clinician education and training and staged implementation scale-up) that address barriers and leverage facilitators through their mechanisms of action (eg, increased clinician awareness of evidence and targeting the highest effectiveness). We identified key implementation (eg, penetration, adoption, acceptability, fidelity, appropriateness, and sustainability), system (eg, integration of VTE-risk assessment into clinical workflow), and clinical (eg, lower VTE rates) outcomes targeted by the selected strategies. Conclusion: Using the Implementation Research Logic Model framework and building on our knowledge of barriers and facilitators, we identified implementation strategies and important outcomes to evaluate these strategies. We will use these results to test and measure the strategies to improve the uptake of evidence-based recommendations for VTE prevention in oncology practice.

Menu Calorie Label Use and Diet Quality: a Cross-Sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: Menu calorie labeling has been implemented in food service businesses to promote healthy food choices; however, evidence is limited on whether label use is associated with healthier dietary intake. This study examined the association between menu calorie label use and diet quality and whether it varied by weight status. METHODS: Adults in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2017-2018 who visited restaurants were included. Menu calorie label use was categorized as did not notice labels, noticed labels, and used labels. Diet quality was measured using the Healthy Eating Index 2015 (maximum score 100) by two 24-hour diet recalls. The association between menu calorie label use and diet quality was examined using multiple linear regression and tested for effect modification by weight status. Data were collected during 2017-2018 and analyzed during 2022-2023. RESULTS: Of 3,312 participants (representing 195,167,928 U.S. adults), 43% did not notice labels, 30% noticed labels, and 27% used labels. Using labels was associated with 4.0 points (95% CI 2.2, 5.8) higher Healthy Eating Index 2015 scores than not noticing labels. Healthy Eating Index 2015 scores in those using labels were higher for adults with normal BMI (3.4 points; 95% CI=0.2, 6.7), overweight (6.5 points; 95% CI=3.6, 9.5), and obesity (3.0 points; 95% CI=1.0, 5.1) (p-interaction=0.0004) than those who did not notice labels. CONCLUSIONS: Using menu calorie labels was associated with modestly healthier diet quality than not noticing labels, regardless of weight status. This suggests that providing caloric information may help some adults with food decisions.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guideline for Prescribing Opioids, 2022-Need for Integrating Dosing Benchmarks With Shared Decision-Making.

This viewpoint evaluates the CDC's 2022 clinical practice guideline for prescribing opioids and suggests a model for supplemented shared decision-making between patients and clinicians about long-term opioid therapy.

Prevalence and appropriateness of in-person versus not-in-person ambulatory antibiotic prescribing in an integrated academic health system: A cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Ambulatory antibiotic stewardship generally aims to address the appropriateness of antibiotics prescribed at in-person visits. The prevalence and appropriateness of antibiotics prescribed outside of in-person visits is poorly studied. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort study of all ambulatory antibiotic prescribing in an integrated health delivery system in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Antibiotic prescribers and patients receiving oral antibiotic prescriptions between January 2016 and December 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of antibiotics prescribed with in-person visits or not-in-person encounters (e.g., telephone, refills). Proportion of prescriptions in in 5 mutually exclusive appropriateness groups: 1) chronic antibiotic use; 2) antibiotic-appropriate; 3) potentially antibiotic-appropriate; 4) non-antibiotic-appropriate; and 5) not associated with a diagnosis. RESULTS: Over the 4-year study period, there were 714,057 antibiotic prescriptions ordered for 348,739 unique patients by 2,391 clinicians in 467 clinics. Patients had a mean age of 41 years old, were 61% female, and 78% White. Clinicians were 58% women; 78% physicians; and were 42% primary care, 39% medical specialists, and 12% surgical specialists. Overall, 81% of antibiotics were prescribed with in-person visits and 19% without in-person visits. The most common not-in-person encounter types were telephone (10%), orders only (5%), and refill encounters (3%). Of all antibiotic prescriptions, 16% were for chronic use, 15% were antibiotic-appropriate, 39% were potentially antibiotic-appropriate, 22% were non-antibiotic-appropriate, and 8% were not associated with a diagnosis. Antibiotics prescribed in not-in-person encounters were more likely to be chronic (20% versus 15%); less likely to be associated with appropriate or potentially appropriate diagnoses (30% versus 59%) or non-antibiotic-appropriate diagnoses (8% versus 25%); and more likely to be associated with no diagnosis (42% versus <1%). CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory stewardship interventions that focus only on in-person visits may miss a large proportion of antibiotic prescribing, inappropriate prescribing, and antibiotics prescribed in the absence of any diagnosis.

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: 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.

Clinician Job Satisfaction After Peer Comparison Feedback: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Interventions that improve clinician performance through feedback should not contribute to job dissatisfaction or staff turnover. Measurement of job satisfaction may help identify interventions that lead to this undesirable consequence. Objective: To evaluate whether mean job satisfaction was less than the margin of clinical significance among clinicians who received social norm feedback (peer comparison) compared with clinicians who did not. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary, preregistered, noninferiority analysis of a cluster randomized trial compared 3 interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design from November 1, 2011, to April 1, 2014. A total of 248 clinicians were enrolled from 47 clinics. The sample size for this analysis was determined by the number of nonmissing job satisfaction scores from the original enrolled sample, which was 201 clinicians from 43 clinics. Data analysis was performed from October 12 to April 13, 2022. Interventions: Feedback comparing individual clinician performance to top-performing peers, delivered in monthly emails (peer comparison). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a response to the following statement: "Overall, I am satisfied with my current job." Responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Results: A total of 201 clinicians (response rate, 81%) from 43 of the 47 clinics (91%) provided a survey response about job satisfaction. Clinicians were primarily female (n = 129 [64%]) and board certified in internal medicine (n = 126 [63%]), with a mean (SD) age of 48 (10) years. The clinic-clustered difference in mean job satisfaction was greater than -0.32 (ß = 0.11; 95% CI, -0.19 to 0.42; P = .46). Therefore, the preregistered null hypothesis that peer comparison is inferior by resulting in at least a 1-point decrease in job satisfaction by 1 in 3 clinicians was rejected. The secondary null hypothesis that job satisfaction was similar among clinicians randomized to social norm feedback was not able to be rejected. The effect size did not change when controlling for other trial interventions (t = 0.08; P = .94), and no interaction effects were observed. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, peer comparison did not lead to lower job satisfaction. Features that may have protected against dissatisfaction include clinicians' agency over the performance measure, privacy of individual performance, and allowing all clinicians to achieve top performance. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT05575115 and NCT01454947.

Impact of COVID-19 on the capacity to self-manage health and chronic conditions.

Objective: To investigate well-being, lifestyle behaviors, self-management capacity and healthcare utilization among adults with chronic conditions at the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Data was collected from two interviewer-administered telephone surveys conducted between March 27 - May 22, 2020. Participants were patients at Chicago-area clinics. Self-report and validated measures were used for study-related outcomes. Results: A total of 553 participants (age range 23-88) completed data collection at both timepoints. One in five (20.7%) participants experienced stress due to the coronavirus most or all the time and rates of negative well-being were high (WHO-5 Index mean = 58.7%). Almost a quarter (22.3%) engaged in hazardous drinking and 79.7% reported insufficient physical activity. Nearly one in four participants (23.7%) avoided seeking medical care due to worry about COVID-19. In multivariable analyses, greater COVID-19 related stress was associated with less physical activity, lower self-efficacy, greater difficulty managing health and medications, and delays in seeking medical care due to the coronavirus. Conclusions: Mental well-being, lifestyle behaviors, self-management capacity, and healthcare utilization were impacted in the months following the COVID outbreak. Innovation: These findings suggest health systems should implement proactive measures for detecting and treating emotional and behavioral COVID-related concerns.

Trajectories of Sleep Disturbance and Self-Management of Chronic Conditions during COVID-19 among Middle-aged and Older Adults.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a widespread impact on sleep quality, yet little is known about the prevalence of sleep disturbance and its impact on self-management of chronic conditions during the ongoing pandemic. Objective: To evaluate trajectories of sleep disturbance, and their associations with one's capacity to self-manage chronic conditions. Design: A longitudinal cohort study linked to 3 active clinical trials and 2 cohort studies with 5 time points of sleep data collection (July 15, 2020 - May 23, 2022). Participants: Adults living with chronic conditions who completed sleep questionnaires for two or more time points. Exposure: Trajectories of self-reported sleep disturbance across 5 time points. Main Outcomes: 3 self-reported measures of self-management capacity, including subjective cognitive decline, medication adherence, and self-efficacy for managing chronic disease. Results: 549 adults aged 23 to 91 years were included in the analysis. Two thirds had 3 or more chronic conditions; 42.4% of participants followed a trajectory of moderate or high likelihood of persistent sleep disturbance across the study period. Moderate or high likelihood of sleep disturbance was associated with older age (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.09, 2.26, P<.05), persistent stress (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.16, 2.06, P=.003), poorer physical function (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.17, 2.13, P=.003), greater anxiety (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.04, 1.87, P=.03) and depression (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.20, 2.22, P=.002). Moderate or high likelihood of sleep disturbance was also independently associated with subjective cognitive decline, poorer medication adherence, and worse self-efficacy for managing chronic diseases (all P<.001). Conclusions: Persistent sleep disturbance during the pandemic may be an important risk factor for inadequate chronic disease self-management and potentially poor health outcomes in adults living with chronic conditions. Public health and health system strategies might consider monitoring sleep quality in adults with chronic conditions to optimize health outcomes.

Development and pilot testing of EHR-nudges to reduce overuse in older primary care patients.

BACKGROUND: Unnecessary testing and treatment of common conditions in older adults can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. The primary objective of this study was to develop and pilot test a set of clinical decision support (CDS) alerts informed by social psychology to address overuse in three areas related to ambulatory care of older adults. METHODS: We developed three electronic health record (EHR) CDS alerts to address overuse and pilot tested them from January 17, 2019 to July 17, 2019. We enrolled 14 primary care physicians from three practices within a large health system who cared for adults aged 65 years and older. Three measures of overuse applied to patients meeting the following criteria: ordering of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for prostate cancer screening in adult men aged 76 years and older, ordering of urinalysis or urine cultures (UA or UC) for non-specific reasons to identify bacteriuria in women aged 65 years and older, and overtreatment of diabetes with insulin or oral hypoglycemic medications in adults aged at 75 years and older (DM). Clinicians received CDS alerts when criteria for any of the three overuse measures were met. We then surveyed clinicians to evaluate their experience with the CDS alerts. RESULTS: The number of clinical encounters that triggered CDS alerts was 19 for PSA, 48 for UA/UC and 128 for DM. For PSA encounters, 4 (21%) orders were not performed after the alert. In the UA/UC encounters 29 (60%) orders were not performed after the alert. For the DM encounters, 21 (34%) had diabetes therapy reduced following the alert. Survey respondents indicated that the alerts were clinically accurate and sometimes led them to change their clinical action. CONCLUSIONS: These CDS alerts were feasible to implement and may minimize unnecessary testing and treatment of common conditions in older adults.

Antibiotic stewardship to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in integrated academic health-system urgent care clinics.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and implement antibiotic stewardship activities in urgent care targeting non-antibiotic-appropriate acute respiratory tract infections (ARIs) that also reduces overall antibiotic prescribing and maintains patient satisfaction. PATIENTS AND SETTING: Patients and clinicians at the urgent care clinics of an integrated academic health system. INTERVENTION AND METHODS: The stewardship activities started in fiscal 2020 and included measure development, comparative feedback, and clinician and patient education. We measured antibiotic prescribing in fiscal years 2019, 2020, and 2021 for the stewardship targets, potential diagnosis-shifting visits, and overall. We also collected patient satisfaction data for ARI visits. RESULTS: From FY19 to FY21, 576,609 patients made 1,358,816 visits to 17 urgent care clinics, including 105,781 visits for which stewardship measures were applied and 149,691 visits for which diagnosis shifting measures were applied. The antibiotic prescribing rate decreased for stewardship-measure visits from 34% in FY19 to 12% in FY21 (absolute change, -22%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -23% to -22%). The antibiotic prescribing rate decreased for diagnosis-shifting visits from 63% to 35% (-28%; 95% CI, -28% to -27%), and the antibiotic prescribing rate decreased overall from 30% to 10% (-20%; 95% CI, -20% to -20%). The patient satisfaction rate increased from 83% in FY19 to 89% in FY20 and FY21. There was no significant association between antibiotic prescribing rates of individual clinicians and ARI visit patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Although it was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, an ambulatory antimicrobial stewardship program that focused on improving non-antibiotic-appropriate ARI prescribing was associated with decreased prescribing for (1) the stewardship target, (2) a diagnosis shifting measure, and (3) overall antibiotic prescribing. Patient satisfaction at ARI visits increased over time and was not associated with clinicians' antibiotic prescribing rates.

Patient Perspectives on the Drivers and Deterrents of Antibiotic Treatment of Acute Rhinosinusitis: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are prescribed in >80% of outpatient acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) visits, despite the low incidence of bacterial infection. Previous studies have shown patient expectations are the most robust predictor of antibiotics prescription in ARS. However, patient perceptions are not well known or understood. OBJECTIVE: To understand patient perceptions regarding what drives or deters them from wanting, seeking, and taking antibiotic treatment of ARS. DESIGN: Iterative thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Nineteen adults diagnosed with ARS within the prior 60 days at the Northwestern Medicine General Internal Medicine clinic in Chicago, IL. MAIN MEASURES: Perceptions of patients with ARS. KEY RESULTS: We interviewed 19 patients, identifying the following drivers of antibiotic use: (1) symptoms, especially discolored rhinorrhea, and seeking relief, (2) belief that antibiotics are a convenient and/or effective way to relieve/cure sinusitis, and (3) desire for tangible outcomes of a clinic visit. For deterrents, the following themes emerged: (1) concern about antibiotic resistance, (2) preference for other treatments or preference to avoid medications, and (3) desire to avoid a healthcare visit. Patients identified that a trustworthy physician's recommendation for antibiotics was a driver, and a recommendation against antibiotics was a deterrent to taking antibiotics; a delayed antibiotic prescription also served as a deterrent. Antibiotic side effects were viewed neutrally by most participants, though they were a deterrent to some. CONCLUSIONS: Patients have misconceptions about the indications and effectiveness of antibiotics for ARS. Intimate knowledge of key antibiotic drivers and deterrents, from the perspective of patients with ARS, can be leveraged to engage and increase patients' knowledge, and set appropriate expectations for antibiotics for ARS.