A safety-net antibiotic prescription for otitis media: the effects of a PBRN study on patients and practitioners

A Learning Collaborative to Improve Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care Pediatric Practices

An American Academy of Pediatrics State Chapter organized a 6-month, mostly online quality improvement learning collaborative to improve antibiotic prescribing and patient education for upper respiratory infection (URI) and acute otitis media (AOM). Practices submitted data on quality measures at baseline, monthly, and 4 months post-project. Fifty-three clinicians from 6 independent, private primary care pediatric practices participated. Use of first-line antibiotics for AOM increased from 63.5% at baseline to 80.4% 4 months post-project. Use of safety-net antibiotic prescriptions (SNAP) for AOM increased from 4.5% to 16.9%. Educating patients about management for URI increased from 66.1% to 88.0% and for AOM from 20.4% to 85.6%. Practices maintained high performance for not prescribing antibiotics for URI (94.4% to 96.2%). Leveraging local relationships and national resources, this replicable antibiotic stewardship project engaged independent private practices to improve patient education for URI and AOM and prescribing and use of SNAP for AOM.

Research activity and the association with mortality

INTRODUCTION

The aims of this study were to describe the key features of acute NHS Trusts with different levels of research activity and to investigate associations between research activity and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Comprehensive Clinical Research Network (CCRN) funding and number of patients recruited to NIHR Clinical Research Network (CRN) portfolio studies for each NHS Trusts were used as markers of research activity. Patient-level data for adult non-elective admissions were extracted from the English Hospital Episode Statistics (2005-10). Risk-adjusted mortality associations between Trust structures, research activity and, clinical outcomes were investigated.

RESULTS

Low mortality Trusts received greater levels of funding and recruited more patients adjusted for size of Trust (n = 35, 2,349 £/bed [95% CI 1,855-2,843], 5.9 patients/bed [2.7-9.0]) than Trusts with expected (n = 63, 1,110 £/bed, [864-1,357] p<0.0001, 2.6 patients/bed [1.7-3.5] p<0.0169) or, high (n = 42, 930 £/bed [683-1,177] p = 0.0001, 1.8 patients/bed [1.4-2.1] p<0.0005) mortality rates. The most research active Trusts were those with more doctors, nurses, critical care beds, operating theatres and, made greater use of radiology. Multifactorial analysis demonstrated better survival in the top funding and patient recruitment tertiles (lowest vs. highest (odds ratio & 95% CI: funding 1.050 [1.033-1.068] p<0.0001, recruitment 1.069 [1.052-1.086] p<0.0001), middle vs. highest (funding 1.040 [1.024-1.055] p<0.0001, recruitment 1.085 [1.070-1.100] p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Research active Trusts appear to have key differences in composition than less research active Trusts. Research active Trusts had lower risk-adjusted mortality for acute admissions, which persisted after adjustment for staffing and other structural factors.

Engagement in research: an innovative three-stage review of the benefits for health-care performance

Background

There is a widely held assumption that research engagement improves health-care performance at various levels, but little direct empirical evidence.

Objectives

To conduct a theoretically and empirically grounded synthesis to map and explore plausible mechanisms through which research engagement might improve health services performance. A review of the effects on patients of their health-care practitioner's or institution's participation in clinical trials was published after submission of the proposal for this review. It identified only 13 relevant papers and, overall, suggested that the evidence that research engagement improves health-care performance was less strong than some thought. We aimed to meet the need for a wider review.

Methods

An hourglass review was developed, consisting of three stages: (1) a planning and mapping stage; (2) a focused review concentrating on the core question of whether or not research engagement improves health care; and (3) a wider (but less systematic) review of papers identified during the two earlier stages. Studies were included inthe focused review if the concept of ‘engagementinresearch’ was an input and some measure of ‘performance’ an output. The search strategy covered the period 1990 to March 2012. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science and other relevant databases were searched. A total of 10,239 papers were identified through the database searches, and 159 from other sources. A further relevance and quality check on 473 papers was undertaken, and identified 33 papers for inclusion in the review. A standard meta-analysis was not possible on the heterogeneous mix of papers in the focused review. Therefore an explanatory matrix was developed to help characterise the circumstances in which research engagement might improve health-care performance and the mechanisms that might be at work, identifying two main dimensions along which to categorise the studies:the degree of intentionalityandthe scope of the impact.

Results

Of the 33 papers in the focused review, 28 were positive (of which six were positive/mixed) in relation to the question of whether or not research engagement improves health-care performance. Five papers were negative (of which two were negative/mixed). Seven out of 28 positive papers reported some improvement in health outcomes. For the rest, the improved care took the form of improved processes of care. Nine positive papers were at a clinician level and 19 at an institutional level. The wider review demonstrated, for example, how collaborative and action research can encourage some progress along the pathway from research engagement towards improved health-care performance. There is also evidence that organisations in which the research function is fully integrated into the organisational structure out-perform other organisations that pay less formal heed to research and its outputs. The focused and wider reviews identified the diversity in the mechanisms through which research engagement might improve health care: there are many circumstances and mechanisms at work, more than one mechanism is often operative, and the evidence available for each one is limited.

Limitations

To address the complexities of this evidence synthesis of research we needed to spend significant time mapping the literature, and narrowed the research question to make it feasible. We excluded many potentially relevant papers (though we partially addressed this by conducting a wider additional synthesis). Studies assessing the impact made on clinician behaviour by small, locally conducted pieces of research could be difficult to interpret without full knowledge of the context.

Conclusions

Drawing on the focused and wider reviews, it is suggested that when clinicians and health-care organisations engage in research there is the likelihood of a positive impact on health-care performance. Organisations that have deliberately integrated the research function into organisational structures demonstrate how research engagement can, among other factors, contribute to improved health-care performance. Further explorations are required of research networks and schemes to promote the engagement of clinicians and managers in research. Detailed observational research focusing on research engagement within organisations would build up an understanding of mechanisms.

Study registration

PROSPERO: CRD42012001990.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Antibiotic use in infants in the first year of life in five European countries

AIM

To assess in infants the number of illness episodes treated with antibiotics and prescription rates in five European countries.

METHODS

This study was embedded in a multicenter nutritional intervention study and was conducted in five European countries. Infants were followed until 1 year of age. Illness episodes and prescriptions of systemic antibiotics were recorded by the parents.

RESULTS

Illness episodes were caused by upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) in 55-64% and by otitis media (OM) in 2-6.8%. URTIs were statistically significant and more frequently treated with antibiotics in Italy (18.8%), and less frequently in Switzerland (1.4%). OM was statistically significant and less frequently treated with antibiotics in the Netherlands (55%) when compared to Italy (82%). The antibiotic prescription rate varied between countries, ranging from 0.2 to 1.3 prescriptions per infant per year.

CONCLUSIONS

As the frequency of illness episodes did not differ between countries, other factors, such as physician's attitude, parental pressure or other socio-economic determinants, most likely play a role in antibiotic prescribing habits in the first year of life.

The concept and practice of a wait-and-see approach to acute otitis media

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We review the contemporary management of acute otitis media, including symptomatic care, the rationale and literature for utilizing the wait-and-see approach, and the indications for immediate therapy with antibiotics.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current guidelines recommend selective use of observation in children diagnosed with acute otitis media. Recent evidence suggests that a wait-and-see approach will reduce the use of antibiotics and decrease adverse events associated with their use. Earlier studies found that antimicrobials reduce pain and discomfort in the acute phase of illness compared with placebo. A recently published trial, however, suggests that when analgesics are utilized there may be minimal or no difference in otalgia whether antibiotics are prescribed or withheld.

SUMMARY

Treatment of acute otitis media is the most frequent indication for prescribing antibiotics in the pediatric population. Evidence suggests there is marginal benefit from antibiotics for most children diagnosed with AOM. Based on current data, we propose an algorithm for the management of children with AOM that includes a wait-and-see approach with specific indications for immediate treatment with antibiotics. A wait-and-see approach to acute otitis media that empowers families by using a shared decision-making model will reduce the use of antibiotics and will decrease resistance to antimicrobials.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Otitis Media: Evaluating the Evidence

Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common illnesses for which children in the United States receive an antimicrobial agent. Of the six recommendations offered in recent guidelines for treatment of AOM, only one, the assessment and treatment of pain with analgesics, is based on strong evidence. This article reviews the diagnosis of AOM and the accuracy of various signs and symptoms in indicating a bacterial origin, the data on the effect of antimicrobial agents compared with placebo in the treatment of AOM, and the gaps in knowledge that should be addressed by future research and clinical trials.