Impact of Clinical Decision Support on Antibiotic Prescribing for Acute Respiratory Infections: a Cluster Randomized Implementation Trial

Ambulatory antibiotic prescription rates for acute respiratory infection rebound two years after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, acute respiratory infection (ARI) antibiotic prescribing in ambulatory care markedly decreased. It is unclear if antibiotic prescription rates will remain lowered.

METHODS

We used trend analyses of antibiotics prescribed during and after the first wave of COVID-19 to determine whether ARI antibiotic prescribing rates in ambulatory care have remained suppressed compared to pre-COVID-19 levels. Retrospective data was used from patients with ARI or UTI diagnosis code(s) for their encounter from 298 primary care and 66 urgent care practices within four academic health systems in New York, Wisconsin, and Utah between January 2017 and June 2022. The primary measures included antibiotic prescriptions per 100 non-COVID ARI encounters, encounter volume, prescribing trends, and change from expected trend.

RESULTS

At baseline, during and after the first wave, the overall ARI antibiotic prescribing rates were 54.7, 38.5, and 54.7 prescriptions per 100 encounters, respectively. ARI antibiotic prescription rates saw a statistically significant decline after COVID-19 onset (step change -15.2, 95% CI: -19.6 to -4.8). During the first wave, encounter volume decreased 29.4% and, after the first wave, remained decreased by 188%. After the first wave, ARI antibiotic prescription rates were no longer significantly suppressed from baseline (step change 0.01, 95% CI: -6.3 to 6.2). There was no significant difference between UTI antibiotic prescription rates at baseline versus the end of the observation period.

CONCLUSIONS

The decline in ARI antibiotic prescribing observed after the onset of COVID-19 was temporary, not mirrored in UTI antibiotic prescribing, and does not represent a long-term change in clinician prescribing behaviors. During a period of heightened awareness of a viral cause of ARI, a substantial and clinically meaningful decrease in clinician antibiotic prescribing was observed. Future efforts in antibiotic stewardship may benefit from continued study of factors leading to this reduction and rebound in prescribing rates.

Barriers to Implementing Registered Nurse-Driven Clinical Decision Support for Antibiotic Stewardship: Retrospective Case Study

BACKGROUND

Up to 50% of antibiotic prescriptions for upper respiratory infections (URIs) are inappropriate. Clinical decision support (CDS) systems to mitigate unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions have been implemented into electronic health records, but their use by providers has been limited.

OBJECTIVE

As a delegation protocol, we adapted a validated electronic health record-integrated clinical prediction rule (iCPR) CDS-based intervention for registered nurses (RNs), consisting of triage to identify patients with low-acuity URI followed by CDS-guided RN visits. It was implemented in February 2022 as a randomized controlled stepped-wedge trial in 43 primary and urgent care practices within 4 academic health systems in New York, Wisconsin, and Utah. While issues were pragmatically addressed as they arose, a systematic assessment of the barriers to implementation is needed to better understand and address these barriers.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective case study, collecting quantitative and qualitative data regarding clinical workflows and triage-template use from expert interviews, study surveys, routine check-ins with practice personnel, and chart reviews over the first year of implementation of the iCPR intervention. Guided by the updated CFIR (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research), we characterized the initial barriers to implementing a URI iCPR intervention for RNs in ambulatory care. CFIR constructs were coded as missing, neutral, weak, or strong implementation factors.

RESULTS

Barriers were identified within all implementation domains. The strongest barriers were found in the outer setting, with those factors trickling down to impact the inner setting. Local conditions driven by COVID-19 served as one of the strongest barriers, impacting attitudes among practice staff and ultimately contributing to a work infrastructure characterized by staff changes, RN shortages and turnover, and competing responsibilities. Policies and laws regarding scope of practice of RNs varied by state and institutional application of those laws, with some allowing more clinical autonomy for RNs. This necessitated different study procedures at each study site to meet practice requirements, increasing innovation complexity. Similarly, institutional policies led to varying levels of compatibility with existing triage, rooming, and documentation workflows. These workflow conflicts were compounded by limited available resources, as well as an implementation climate of optional participation, few participation incentives, and thus low relative priority compared to other clinical duties.

CONCLUSIONS

Both between and within health care systems, significant variability existed in workflows for patient intake and triage. Even in a relatively straightforward clinical workflow, workflow and cultural differences appreciably impacted intervention adoption. Takeaways from this study can be applied to other RN delegation protocol implementations of new and innovative CDS tools within existing workflows to support integration and improve uptake. When implementing a system-wide clinical care intervention, considerations must be made for variability in culture and workflows at the state, health system, practice, and individual levels.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04255303; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04255303.

Reducing prescribing of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections using a frontline nurse-led EHR-Integrated clinical decision support tool: protocol for a stepped wedge randomized control trial

BACKGROUND

Overprescribing of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) remains a major issue in outpatient settings. Use of clinical prediction rules (CPRs) can reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing but they remain underutilized by physicians and advanced practice providers. A registered nurse (RN)-led model of an electronic health record-integrated CPR (iCPR) for low-acuity ARIs may be an effective alternative to address the barriers to a physician-driven model.

METHODS

Following qualitative usability testing, we will conduct a stepped-wedge practice-level cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) examining the effect of iCPR-guided RN care for low acuity patients with ARI. The primary hypothesis to be tested is: Implementation of RN-led iCPR tools will reduce antibiotic prescribing across diverse primary care settings. Specifically, this study aims to: (1) determine the impact of iCPRs on rapid strep test and chest x-ray ordering and antibiotic prescribing rates when used by RNs; (2) examine resource use patterns and cost-effectiveness of RN visits across diverse clinical settings; (3) determine the impact of iCPR-guided care on patient satisfaction; and (4) ascertain the effect of the intervention on RN and physician burnout.

DISCUSSION

This study represents an innovative approach to using an iCPR model led by RNs and specifically designed to address inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. This study has the potential to provide guidance on the effectiveness of delegating care of low-acuity patients with ARIs to RNs to increase use of iCPRs and reduce antibiotic overprescribing for ARIs in outpatient settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04255303, Registered February 5 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04255303 .

Effectiveness of decision support tools on reducing antibiotic use for respiratory tract infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Clinical decision support tools (CDSs) have been demonstrated to enhance the accuracy of antibiotic prescribing among physicians. However, their effectiveness in reducing inappropriate antibiotic use for respiratory tract infections (RTI) is controversial. Methods: A literature search in 3 international databases (Medline, Web of science and Embase) was conducted before 31 May 2023. Relative risk (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled to evaluate the effectiveness of intervention. Summary effect sizes were calculated using a random-effects model due to the expected heterogeneity (I 2 over 50%). Results: A total of 11 cluster randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 5 before-after studies were included in this meta-analysis, involving 900,804 patients met full inclusion criteria. Among these studies, 11 reported positive effects, 1 reported negative results, and 4 reported non-significant findings. Overall, the pooled effect size revealed that CDSs significantly reduced antibiotic use for RTIs (RR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.85 to 0.95, I 2 = 96.10%). Subgroup analysis indicated that the intervention duration may serve as a potential source of heterogeneity. Studies with interventions duration more than 2 years were found to have non-significant effects (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.04, I 2 = 0.00%). Egger's test results indicated no evidence of potential publication bias (p = 0.287). Conclusion: This study suggests that CDSs effectively reduce inappropriate antibiotic use for RTIs among physicians. However, subgroup analysis revealed that interventions lasting more than 2 years did not yield significant effects. These findings highlight the importance of considering intervention duration when implementing CDSs. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023432584, Identifier: PROSPERO (CRD42023432584).

Identification of provider and patient characteristics associated with antibiotic prescription in the treatment of acute sinusitis

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate antibiotic use contributes to the development of antibiotic resistance. Sinusitis is the fifth most common diagnosis responsible for antibiotic use. Appropriate antibiotic prescribing for acute sinusitis treatment is crucial to mitigate antibiotic resistance threats.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to identify patient and provider characteristics associated with antibiotic prescription and to assess provider adherence to antibiotic prescribing guidelines for acute sinusitis treatment.

METHODOLOGY

Retrospective chart review including acute sinusitis cases diagnosed over 12 months, at two express care clinics in the Southwestern United States. Data extraction identified 371 cases meeting inclusion criteria (age >18 years). Descriptive statistical data analyses included Chi square tests.

RESULTS

A majority of cases received antibiotic prescriptions (90.8%, n = 337). Sociodemographic characteristics significantly associated with antibiotic prescription ( p < .05) included race, ethnicity, insurance type, and smoking status. Patient-reported nature of symptoms, sinus tenderness, and erythema/edema nasal turbinates were also significantly associated with antibiotic prescription ( p < .05). Antibiotic prescription and watchful waiting for acute sinusitis treatment were significantly associated with provider types ( p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

A gap exists between current guidelines and clinical practice for acute sinusitis treatment in outpatient settings. Antibiotic prescription occurred, although not indicated, along with incorrect antibiotic choice, dose, and duration of therapy.

IMPLICATIONS

Outpatient antimicrobial stewardship programs for acute sinusitis treatment with a focus on educational interventions for providers may reduce antibiotic overprescribing for acute sinusitis.

Biomarkers as point-of-care tests to guide prescription of antibiotics in people with acute respiratory infections in primary care

BACKGROUND

Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are by far the most common reason for prescribing an antibiotic in primary care, even though the majority of ARIs are of viral or non-severe bacterial aetiology. It follows that in many cases antibiotic use will not be beneficial to a patient's recovery but may expose them to potential side effects. Furthermore, limiting unnecessary antibiotic use is a key factor in controlling antibiotic resistance. One strategy to reduce antibiotic use in primary care is point-of-care biomarkers. A point-of-care biomarker (test) of inflammation identifies part of the acute phase response to tissue injury regardless of the aetiology (infection, trauma, or inflammation) and may be used as a surrogate marker of infection, potentially assisting the physician in the clinical decision whether to use an antibiotic to treat ARIs. Biomarkers may guide antibiotic prescription by ruling out a serious bacterial infection and help identify patients in whom no benefit from antibiotic treatment can be anticipated. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of point-of-care biomarker tests of inflammation to guide antibiotic treatment in people presenting with symptoms of acute respiratory infections in primary care settings regardless of patient age.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2022, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1946 to 14 June 2022), Embase (1974 to 14 June 2022), CINAHL (1981 to 14 June 2022), Web of Science (1955 to 14 June 2022), and LILACS (1982 to 14 June 2022). We also searched three trial registries (10 December 2021) for completed and ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in primary care patients with ARIs that compared the use of point-of-care biomarkers with standard care. We included trials that randomised individual participants, as well as trials that randomised clusters of patients (cluster-RCTs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data on the following primary outcomes: number of participants given an antibiotic prescription at index consultation and within 28 days follow-up; participant recovery within seven days follow-up; and total mortality within 28 days follow-up. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We used random-effects meta-analyses when feasible. We further analysed results with considerable heterogeneity in prespecified subgroups of individual and cluster-RCTs.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven new trials in this update, for a total of 13 included trials. Twelve trials (10,218 participants in total, 2335 of which were children) evaluated a C-reactive protein point-of-care test, and one trial (317 adult participants) evaluated a procalcitonin point-of-care test. The studies were conducted in Europe, Russia, and Asia. Overall, the included trials had a low or unclear risk of bias. However all studies were open-labelled, thereby introducing high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. The use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests to guide antibiotic prescription likely reduces the number of participants given an antibiotic prescription, from 516 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the control group to 397 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the intervention group (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.86; 12 trials, 10,218 participants; I² = 79%; moderate-certainty evidence).  Overall, use of C-reactive protein tests also reduce the number of participants given an antibiotic prescription within 28 days follow-up (664 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the control group versus 538 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the intervention group) (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.86; 7 trials, 5091 participants; I² = 29; high-certainty evidence). The prescription of antibiotics as guided by C-reactive protein tests likely does not reduce the number of participants recovered, within seven or 28 days follow-up (567 participants recovered within seven days follow-up per 1000 participants in the control group versus 584 participants recovered within seven days follow-up per 1000 participants in the intervention group) (recovery within seven days follow-up: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.12; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) (recovery within 28 days follow-up: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.32; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). The use of C-reactive protein tests may not increase total mortality within 28 days follow-up, from 1 death per 1000 participants in the control group to 0 deaths per 1000 participants in the intervention group (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.92; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain as to whether procalcitonin affects any of the primary or secondary outcomes because there were few participants, thereby limiting the certainty of evidence. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as moderate to high according to GRADE for the primary outcomes for C-reactive protein test, except for mortality, as there were very few deaths, thereby limiting the certainty of the evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests as an adjunct to standard care likely reduces the number of participants given an antibiotic prescription in primary care patients who present with symptoms of acute respiratory infection. The use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests likely does not affect recovery rates. It is unlikely that further research will substantially change our conclusion regarding the reduction in number of participants given an antibiotic prescription, although the size of the estimated effect may change.  The use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests may not increase mortality within 28 days follow-up, but there were very few events. Studies that recorded deaths and hospital admissions were performed in children from low- and middle-income countries and older adults with comorbidities.  Future studies should focus on children, immunocompromised individuals, and people aged 80 years and above with comorbidities. More studies evaluating procalcitonin and potential new biomarkers as point-of-care tests used in primary care to guide antibiotic prescription are needed.  Furthermore, studies are needed to validate C-reactive protein decision algorithms, with a specific focus on potential age group differences.

Effect of unifaceted and multifaceted interventions on antibiotic prescription control for respiratory diseases: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The global health system is improperly using antibiotics, particularly in the treatment of respiratory diseases. We aimed to examine the effectiveness of implementing a unifaceted and multifaceted intervention for unreasonable antibiotic prescriptions.

METHODS

Relevant literature published in the databases of Pubmed, Embase, Science Direct, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang was searched. Data were independently filtered and extracted by 2 reviewers based on a pre-designed inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Cochrane collaborative bias risk tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included randomized controlled trials studies.

RESULTS

A total of 1390 studies were obtained of which 23 studies the outcome variables were antibiotic prescription rates with the number of prescriptions and intervention details were included in the systematic review. Twenty-two of the studies involved educational interventions for doctors, including: online training using email, web pages and webinar, antibiotic guidelines for information dissemination measures by email, postal or telephone reminder, training doctors in communication skills, short-term interactive educational seminars, and short-term field training sessions. Seventeen studies of interventions for health care workers also included: regular or irregular assessment/audit of antibiotic prescriptions, prescription recommendations from experts and peers delivered at a meeting or online, publicly reporting on doctors' antibiotic usage to patients, hospital administrators, and health authorities, monitoring/feedback prescribing behavior to general practices by email or poster, and studies involving patients and their families (n = 8). Twenty-one randomized controlled trials were rated as having a low risk of bias while 2 randomized controlled trials were rated as having a high risk of bias. Six studies contained negative results.

CONCLUSION

The combination of education, prescription audit, prescription recommendations from experts, public reporting, prescription feedback and patient or family member multifaceted interventions can effectively reduce antibiotic prescription rates in health care institutions. Moreover, adding multifaceted interventions to educational interventions can control antibiotic prescription rates and may be a more reasonable method.

REGISTRATIONS

This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO, registration number: CRD42020192560.

Effects of a Guideline-Informed Clinical Decision Support System Intervention to Improve Colony-Stimulating Factor Prescribing: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Colony-stimulating factors are prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia. Research suggests that 55% to 95% of colony-stimulating factor prescribing is inconsistent with national guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether a guideline-based standing order for primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors improves use and reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cluster randomized clinical trial, the Trial Assessing CSF Prescribing Effectiveness and Risk (TrACER), involved 32 community oncology clinics in the US. Participants were adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small cell lung cancer initiating cancer therapy and enrolled between January 2016 and April 2020. Data analysis was performed from July to October 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Sites were randomized 3:1 to implementation of a guideline-based primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factor standing order system or usual care. Automated orders were added for high-risk regimens, and an alert not to prescribe was included for low-risk regimens. Risk was based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was to find an increase in colony-stimulating factor use among high-risk patients from 40% to 75%, a reduction in use among low-risk patients from 17% to 7%, and a 50% reduction in febrile neutropenia rates in the intervention group. Mixed model logistic regression adjusted for correlation of outcomes within a clinic.

RESULTS

A total of 2946 patients (median [IQR] age, 59.0 [50.0-67.0] years; 2233 women [77.0%]; 2292 White [79.1%]) were enrolled; 2287 were randomized to the intervention, and 659 were randomized to usual care. Colony-stimulating factor use for patients receiving high-risk regimens was high and not significantly different between groups (847 of 950 patients [89.2%] in the intervention group vs 296 of 309 patients [95.8%] in the usual care group). Among high-risk patients, febrile neutropenia rates for the intervention (58 of 947 patients [6.1%]) and usual care (13 of 308 patients [4.2%]) groups were not significantly different. The febrile neutropenia rate for patients receiving high-risk regimens not receiving colony-stimulating factors was 14.9% (17 of 114 patients). Among the 585 patients receiving low-risk regimens, colony-stimulating factor use was low and did not differ between groups (29 of 457 patients [6.3%] in the intervention group vs 7 of 128 patients [5.5%] in the usual care group). Febrile neutropenia rates did not differ between usual care (1 of 127 patients [0.8%]) and the intervention (7 of 452 patients [1.5%]) groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cluster randomized clinical trial, implementation of a guideline-informed standing order did not affect colony-stimulating factor use or febrile neutropenia rates in high-risk and low-risk patients. Overall, use was generally appropriate for the level of risk. Standing order interventions do not appear to be necessary or effective in the setting of prophylactic colony-stimulating factor prescribing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02728596.

Factors driving provider adoption of the TREWS machine learning-based early warning system and its effects on sepsis treatment timing

Machine learning-based clinical decision support tools for sepsis create opportunities to identify at-risk patients and initiate treatments at early time points, which is critical for improving sepsis outcomes. In view of the increasing use of such systems, better understanding of how they are adopted and used by healthcare providers is needed. Here, we analyzed provider interactions with a sepsis early detection tool (Targeted Real-time Early Warning System), which was deployed at five hospitals over a 2-year period. Among 9,805 retrospectively identified sepsis cases, the early detection tool achieved high sensitivity (82% of sepsis cases were identified) and a high rate of adoption: 89% of all alerts by the system were evaluated by a physician or advanced practice provider and 38% of evaluated alerts were confirmed by a provider. Adjusting for patient presentation and severity, patients with sepsis whose alert was confirmed by a provider within 3 h had a 1.85-h (95% CI 1.66-2.00) reduction in median time to first antibiotic order compared to patients with sepsis whose alert was either dismissed, confirmed more than 3 h after the alert or never addressed in the system. Finally, we found that emergency department providers and providers who had previous interactions with an alert were more likely to interact with alerts, as well as to confirm alerts on retrospectively identified patients with sepsis. Beyond efforts to improve the performance of early warning systems, efforts to improve adoption are essential to their clinical impact and should focus on understanding providers' knowledge of, experience with and attitudes toward such systems.

Assessing Reduction of Antibiotic Prescribing for Acute, Non-Complicated Infections in Primary Care in Germany: Multi-Step Outcome Evaluation in the Cluster-Randomized Trial ARena

The three-armed cluster-randomized trial ARena (sustainable reduction of antibiotic-induced antimicrobial resistance) aimed to foster appropriate antibiotic use and reduce overprescribing in German ambulatory care to counter antibiotic resistance. Multi-faceted interventions targeted primary care physicians, teams and patients. This study examined the effectiveness of the implementation program. ARena was conducted in 14 primary care networks with 196 practices. All arms received data-based feedback on antibiotics prescribing and quality circles. Arms II and III received different add-on components each. Primary outcome examined is the prescribing rate for systemic antibiotics for cases with non-complicated acute infections (upper respiratory tract, bronchitis, sinusitis, tonsillitis, otitis media). Secondary outcomes refer to the prescribing of quinolones and guideline-recommended antibiotics. Based on pseudonymized quarterly claims data, mixed logistic regression models examined pre-post intervention antibiotic prescribing rate changes and compared to matched standard care. A significant rate reduction (arm I 11.7%; arm II 9.9%; arm III 12.7%) and significantly lower prescribing rates were observed for all arms (20.1%, 18.9% and 23.6%) compared to matched standard care (29.4%). Fluoroquinolone prescribing was reduced in all intervention arms and rates for recommended substances generally increased. No significant post-interventional difference between intervention arms was detected. Findings indicate implementation program impact compared to standard care.