Effect of prescriber peer comparison reports on fluoroquinolone use across a 16‐facility community hospital system

Impact on hospital-wide antipsychotic prescribing practices through physician peer comparison letters

Peer comparison is a behavioral strategy that provides feedback to individuals on how they compare with others. It is used to improve health care quality, reduce inappropriate prescribing, and improve physician performance. There is very little data on peer comparison and the impact on system-wide prescribing practices, particularly with antipsychotics. To that end, the Maryland statewide pharmacy and therapeutics committee reviews hospital-level antipsychotic data for 5 facilities on a quarterly basis, including high doses and polypharmacy. One facility, Springfield Hospital Center, consistently stood out in 2016 as having higher rates of high doses of haloperidol, olanzapine, and quetiapine as well as patients receiving 3 or more antipsychotics. The pharmacist began to send out individual letters to the psychiatrists detailing their prescribing habits in these areas compared with other psychiatrists and the other state facilities. Over the course of 4 years, the percentage of patients on high doses of 3 antipsychotics substantially decreased. The percentage of patients on polypharmacy in the facility decreased, but not at the same rate as the other hospitals, leaving the facility even higher than the state average at the end of the 4-year period. Pharmacist-initiated physician peer comparison letters were associated with a considerable decrease in the prevalence of high-dose olanzapine, haloperidol, and quetiapine but did not appear to impact antipsychotic polypharmacy. This type of communication may be beneficial for stimulating system-wide changes in prescribing practices for high doses of antipsychotics; however, more individualized interventions are likely needed to reduce antipsychotic polypharmacy.

Systematic review of clinician-directed nudges in healthcare contexts

OBJECTIVE

Nudges are interventions that alter the way options are presented, enabling individuals to more easily select the best option. Health systems and researchers have tested nudges to shape clinician decision-making with the aim of improving healthcare service delivery. We aimed to systematically study the use and effectiveness of nudges designed to improve clinicians' decisions in healthcare settings.

DESIGN

A systematic review was conducted to collect and consolidate results from studies testing nudges and to determine whether nudges directed at improving clinical decisions in healthcare settings across clinician types were effective. We systematically searched seven databases (EBSCO MegaFILE, EconLit, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) and used a snowball sampling technique to identify peer-reviewed published studies available between 1 January 1984 and 22 April 2020. Eligible studies were critically appraised and narratively synthesised. We categorised nudges according to a taxonomy derived from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Included studies were appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.

RESULTS

We screened 3608 studies and 39 studies met our criteria. The majority of the studies (90%) were conducted in the USA and 36% were randomised controlled trials. The most commonly studied nudge intervention (46%) framed information for clinicians, often through peer comparison feedback. Nudges that guided clinical decisions through default options or by enabling choice were also frequently studied (31%). Information framing, default and enabling choice nudges showed promise, whereas the effectiveness of other nudge types was mixed. Given the inclusion of non-experimental designs, only a small portion of studies were at minimal risk of bias (33%) across all Cochrane criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Nudges that frame information, change default options or enable choice are frequently studied and show promise in improving clinical decision-making. Future work should examine how nudges compare to non-nudge interventions (eg, policy interventions) in improving healthcare.