Effectiveness of confidential reports to physicians on their prescribing of antipsychotic medications in nursing homes

Incorporating clinician insight and care plans into an audit and feedback initiative for antipsychotic prescribing to Medicaid-enrolled youth in Philadelphia

BACKGROUND

Audit and feedback (A/F), which include initiatives like report cards, have an inconsistent impact on clinicians' prescribing behavior. This may be attributable to their focus on aggregate prescribing measures, a one-size-fits-all approach, and the fact that A/F initiatives rarely engage with the clinicians they target.

METHODS

In this study, we describe the development and delivery of a report card that summarized antipsychotic prescribing to publicly-insured youth in Philadelphia, which was introduced by a Medicaid managed care organization in 2020. In addition to measuring aggregate prescribing behavior, the report card included different elements of care plans, including whether youth were receiving polypharmacy, proper medication management, and the concurrent use of behavioral health outpatient services. The A/F initiative elicited feedback from clinicians, which we refer to as an "audit and feedback loop." We also evaluate the impact of the report card by comparing pre-post differences in prescribing measures for clinicians who received the report card with a group of clinicians who did not receive the report card.

RESULTS

Report cards indicated that many youth who were prescribed antipsychotics were not receiving proper medication management or using behavioral health outpatient services alongside the antipsychotic prescription, but that polypharmacy was rare. In their feedback, clinicians who received report cards cited several challenges related to antipsychotic prescribing, such as the logistical difficulties of entering lab orders and family members' hesitancy to change care plans. The impact of the report card was mixed: there was a modest reduction in the share of youth receiving polypharmacy following the receipt of the report card, while other measures did not change. However, we documented a large reduction in the number of youth with one or more antipsychotic prescription fill among clinicians who received a report card.

CONCLUSIONS

A/F initiatives are a common approach to improving the quality of care, and often target specific practices such as antipsychotic prescribing. Report cards are a low-cost and feasible intervention but there is room for quality improvement, such as adding measures that track medication management or eliciting feedback from clinicians who receive report cards. To ensure that the benefits of antipsychotic prescribing outweigh its risks, it is important to promote quality and safety of antipsychotic prescribing within a broader care plan.

Engagement is a necessary condition to test audit and feedback design features: results of a pragmatic, factorial, cluster-randomized trial with an embedded process evaluation

BACKGROUND

While audit & feedback (A&F) is an effective implementation intervention, the design elements which maximize effectiveness are unclear. Partnering with a healthcare quality advisory organization already delivering feedback, we conducted a pragmatic, 2 × 2 factorial, cluster-randomized trial to test the impact of variations in two factors: (A) the benchmark used for comparison and (B) information framing. An embedded process evaluation explored hypothesized mechanisms of effect.

METHODS

Eligible physicians worked in nursing homes in Ontario, Canada, and had voluntarily signed up to receive the report. Groups of nursing homes sharing physicians were randomized to (A) physicians' individual prescribing rates compared to top-performing peers (the top quartile) or the provincial median and (B) risk-framed information (reporting the number of patients prescribed high-risk medication) or benefit-framed information (reporting the number of patients not prescribed). We hypothesized that the top quartile comparator and risk-framing would lead to greater practice improvements. The primary outcome was the mean number of central nervous system-active medications per resident per month. Primary analyses compared the four arms at 6 months post-intervention. Factorial analyses were secondary. The process evaluation comprised a follow-up questionnaire and semi-structured interviews.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixty-seven physicians (152 clusters) were randomized: 67 to arm 1 (median benchmark, benefit framing), 65 to arm 2 (top quartile benchmark, benefit framing), 75 to arm 3 (median benchmark, risk framing), and 60 to arm 4 (top quartile benchmark, risk framing). There were no significant differences in the primary outcome across arms or for each factor. However, engagement was low (27-31% of physicians across arms downloaded the report). The process evaluation indicated that both factors minimally impacted the proposed mechanisms. However, risk-framed feedback was perceived as more actionable and more compatible with current workflows, whilst a higher target might encourage behaviour change when physicians identified with the comparator.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk framing and a top quartile comparator have the potential to achieve change. Further work to establish the strategies most likely to enhance A&F engagement, particularly with physicians who may be most likely to benefit from feedback, is required to support meaningfully addressing intricate research questions concerning the design of A&F.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02979964 . Registered 29 November 2016.

Implementing an audit and feedback cycle to improve adherence to the Choosing Wisely Canada recommendations: clustered randomized trail

BACKGROUND

Audit and Feedback (A&F), a strategy aimed at promoting modified practice through performance feedback, is a method to change provider behaviour and reduce unnecessary medical services. This study aims to assess the use of A&F to reduce antibiotic prescribing for viral infections and antipsychotic prescribing to patients with dementia.

METHODS

Clustered randomized trial of 239 primary care providers in Manitoba, Canada, participating in the Manitoba Primary Care Research Network. Forty-six practices were randomly assigned to one of three groups: control group, intervention 1 (recommendations summary), intervention 2 (recommendations summary and personalized feedback). We assessed prescribing rates prior to the intervention (2014/15), during and immediately after the intervention (2016/17) and following the intervention (2018/19). Physician characteristics were assessed.

RESULTS

Between 2014/15-2016/17, 91.6% of providers in intervention group 1 and 95.9% of providers in intervention group 2 reduced their antibiotic and antipsychotic prescribing rate by ≥ 1 compared to the control group (77.6%) (p-value 0.0073). This reduction was maintained into 2018/19 at 91.4%. On multivariate regression alternatively funded providers had 2.4 × higher odds of reducing their antibiotic prescribing rate compared to fee-for-service providers. In quantile regression of providers with a reduction in antibiotic prescribing, alternatively funded (e.g. salaried or locum) providers compared to fee-for-service providers were significant at the 80^th quantile.

CONCLUSIONS

Both A&F and recommendation summaries sent to providers by a trusted source reduced unnecessary prescriptions. Our findings support further scale up of efforts to engage with primary care practices to improve care with A&F.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05385445, retrospectively registered, 23/05/2022.

Behavioral Nudges to Improve Audit and Feedback Report Opening among Antibiotic Prescribers: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Peer comparison audit and feedback has demonstrated effectiveness in improving antibiotic prescribing practices, but only a minority of prescribers view their reports. We rigorously tested three behavioral nudging techniques delivered by email to improve report opening.

Methods

We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial among Ontario long-term care (LTC) prescribers enrolled in an ongoing peer comparison audit and feedback program which includes data on their antibiotic prescribing patterns. Physicians were randomized to 1 of 8 possible sequences of intervention/control allocation to 3 different behavioral email nudges: a social peer comparison nudge (January 2020), a maintenance of professional certification incentive nudge (October 2020), and a prior participation nudge (January 2021). The primary outcome was feedback report opening; the primary analysis pooled the effects of all 3 nudging interventions.

Results

The trial included 421 physicians caring for more than 28,000 residents at 450 facilities. In the pooled analysis, physicians opened only 29.6% of intervention and 23.9% of control reports (odds ratio (OR) 1.51 (95%CI 1.10-2.07, p=0.011); this difference remained significant after accounting for physician characteristics and clustering (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.74 (95%CI 1.24-2.45, p=0.0014). Of individual nudging techniques, the prior participation nudge was associated with a significant increase in report opening (OR 1.62, 95%CI 1.06-2.47, p=0.026; aOR 2.16, 95%CI 1.33-3.50, p=0.0018). In the pooled analysis, nudges were also associated with accessing more report pages (aOR 1.28, 95%CI 1.14-1.43, p<0.001).

Conclusions

Enhanced nudging strategies modestly improved report opening, but more work is needed to optimize physician engagement with audit and feedback.

Audit feedback interventions to address high-risk prescriptions in long-term care homes: a costing study and return on investment analysis

BACKGROUND

Audit and feedback is a common implementation strategy, but few studies describe its costs. 'MyPractice' is a province-wide audit and feedback initiative to improve prescribing in nursing homes. This study sought to estimate the costs of 'MyPractice' and assess whether the financial benefit of 'MyPractice' offsets those costs.

METHODS

We conducted a costing study from the perspective of the Ontario government. Total cost of 'MyPractice' was calculated as the sum of the costs of producing and disseminating the reports (covering three report releases) which were obtained from Ontario Health staff interviews and document reviews. Return on investment (ROI) was calculated as the ratio of net cost-savings and the intervention cost. Cost savings were based on the effectiveness of 'MyPractice' derived from a published cohort study. Cost-savings attributable to 'MyPractice' were estimated from the changes in the rates of antipsychotics over time between physicians who signed up and viewed the reports and those who did not sign up to the reports.

RESULTS

Total intervention costs were C$223,691 (C$838 per physician and C$74,564 per release). Costs incurred during the development phase accounted for 74% of the total cost (C$166,117), while implementation costs for three report releases were responsible for 26% of the total costs (C$57,575). The ROI for every C$1 spent on the 'MyPractice' intervention was 1.02 (95% CI 0.51, 1.93) for three report releases.

CONCLUSION

'MyPractice' report offers a good return on investment and the value for money could improve with greater number of report releases.

Potentially Inappropriate Drug Duplication in a Cohort of Older Adults with Dementia

BACKGROUND

Concurrent use of 2 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, loop diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, or anticoagulants is considered potentially inappropriate by Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions and Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment criteria.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to examine drug duplication in a cohort of older adults with dementia.

METHODS

Cohort entry for Nova Scotia Seniors' Pharmacare Program beneficiaries was the date an International Classification of Diseases ninth edition or 10th edition code for dementia was recorded in accessed databases between March 1, 2005, and March 31, 2015. Medication dispensation and sociodemographic data were captured from the Nova Scotia Seniors' Pharmacare Program database between April 1, 2010, and March 31, 2015. Duplication was considered when 2 drugs from the same class were dispensed such that the supply in the patient's possession could overlap for more than 30 days. We reported number of cases of duplication and duration of overlap. Sex differences in drug duplication were assessed with bivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

In the cohort of 28,953 Nova Scotia Seniors' Pharmacare Program beneficiaries with dementia, we documented concurrent use in 101 (1.7%) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs users (mean duration = 75.6 days), 95 (1.0%) selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors users (mean duration = 146.6 days), 5 (0.07%) loop diuretic users (mean duration = 530.6 days), 183 (2.0%) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor users (mean duration = 123.9 days), and 160 (3.5%) anticoagulant users (mean duration = 63.6 days). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug pairs were most commonly celecoxib with naproxen or diclofenac. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors duplication was most commonly sertraline with citalopram. No sex differences in risk for drug duplication were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Drug duplication was identified in a cohort of older adults with dementia and is a feasible target for intervention. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2021; 82:XXX-XXX).

Development and implementation of a clinician report to reduce unnecessary urine drug screen testing in the ED: a quality improvement initiative

Background

Unnecessary testing is a problem-facing healthcare systems around the world striving to achieve sustainable care. Despite knowing this problem exists, clinicians continue to order tests that do not contribute to patient care. Using behavioural and implementation science can help address this problem. Locally, audit and feedback are used to provide information to clinicians about their performance on relevant metrics. However, this is often done without evidence-based methods to optimise uptake. Our objective was to improve the appropriate use of laboratory tests in the ED using evidence-based audit and feedback and behaviour change techniques.

Methods

Using the behaviour change wheel, we implemented an audit and feedback tool that provided information to ED physicians about their use of laboratory tests; specifically, we focused on education and review of the appropriate use of urine drug screen tests. The report was designed in collaboration with end users to help maximise engagement. Following development of the report, audit and feedback sessions were delivered over an 18-month period.

Results

Data on urine drug screen testing were collected continually throughout the intervention period and showed a sustained decrease among ED physicians. Test use dropped from a monthly departmental average of 26 urine drug screen tests per 1000 patient visits to only eight tests per 1000 patient visits following the initiation of the audit and feedback intervention.

Conclusion

Audit and feedback reduced unnecessary urine drug screen testing in the ED. Regular feedback sessions continuously engaged physicians in the audit and feedback intervention and allowed the implementation team to react to changing priorities and feedback from the clinical group. It was important to include the end users in the design of audit and feedback tools to maximise physician engagement. Inclusion in this process can help ensure physicians adopt a sense of ownership regarding which metrics to review and provides a key component for the motivation aspect of behaviour change. Departmental leadership is also critical to the process of implementing a successful audit and feedback initiative and achieving sustained behaviour change.

Effect of Academic Detailing on Promoting Appropriate Prescribing of Antipsychotic Medication in Nursing Homes: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Strategies to reduce the inappropriate prescription of antipsychotics have been the focus of recent attention but have shown considerable variation in their effectiveness.

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of academic detailing in nursing homes targeting appropriate prescribing of antipsychotics.

Design, Setting, and Participants

We conducted a pragmatic, cluster randomized clinical trial comparing the effect of academic detailing vs usual care on prescribing antipsychotics in 40 nursing homes with 5363 residents in Ontario, Canada. Data were collected from October 2015 to March 2016 and analyzed from April to August 2018. Primary analyses were conducted using intention to treat.

Intervention

Academic detailing delivered by health professionals (eg, nurses or pharmacists) who arranged meetings (with administrators, physicians, pharmacists, nurses, and support workers), presentations, group visits (with 2-6 clinicians), and 1-on-1 visits (traditional academic detailing visits). Academic detailers had direct and ongoing contact with the nursing homes from the time of launch.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome, defined at the level of the resident, was whether continuous antipsychotics were dispensed in the past week. Secondary outcomes included prescribing of other psychotropic medications and clinical outcomes and scores. Prescribing outcomes were assessed at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months, and clinical outcomes and scores were assessed at baseline and 3 and 6 months.

Results

A total of 40 nursing homes with 5363 residents were randomized, with 18 intervention homes (45.0%; 2303 [42.9%] residents) and 22 control homes (55.0%; 3060 [57.1%] residents). Participants in the intervention and control groups had similar median (interquartile range) age (86 [79-91] years vs 85 [78-90] years) and sex (674 [29.3%] men vs 970 [31.7%] men). At 12 months, there was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of daily antipsychotic use (intervention: 569 patients [25.2%]; control: 769 [25.6%]; odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.93-1.20; P = .49). There were no significant differences in the rates of health care utilization, but the intervention group did experience a statistically significant reduction in pain compared with the control group (mean [SD] pain score, 0.30 [0.59] vs 0.38 [0.66]; P < .001) and depression (mean [SD] Depression Rating Scale score, 2.18 [2.37] vs 2.81 [2.65]; P < .001) at 6 months.

Conclusions and Relevance

The intervention did not further reduce antipsychotic prescribing in nursing homes beyond system-level secular trends occurring alongside usual care. Our findings highlight the need for a more targeted approach to quality improvement strategies, including academic detailing, that account for the timing and topic of interventions.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02604056.