Impact of selective reporting of antibiotic susceptibility testing results for urinary tract infections in the outpatient setting: A prospective controlled before-after intervention study

OBJECTIVES

The use of selective reporting of antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) results is a recommended antimicrobial stewardship strategy to improve the appropriateness of antibiotic prescriptions. We conducted a large, pragmatic, prospective, multicentre, controlled (selective reporting versus complete reporting) before-after intervention study to assess the impact of selective reporting of AST results for Escherichia coli-positive urine cultures on the prescription of broad-spectrum antibiotics carrying a higher risk of selection of resistance (i.e., amoxicillin-clavulanate, third-generation cephalosporins, and quinolones) in the outpatient setting. We also looked for possible unintended clinical consequences of the intervention leading to consultations and/or hospitalisations.

METHODS

We compared two groups of laboratories located in a French region. We collected data from the health insurance databases before (2017) and after the implementation of the intervention (2019). The primary outcome was the prescription proportions of broad-spectrum antibiotics.

RESULTS

We included 42,956 Escherichia coli-positive urine cultures with AST. The decrease of the proportion of broad-spectrum antibiotic prescriptions between 2017 and 2019 was significantly higher for selective reporting of AST, attributable to a decrease in the prescription proportion of third-generation cephalosporins (- 8.5% for selective reporting versus - 0.1% for complete reporting, p < 0.001). This impact was more marked for targeted therapy and female patients. Requests from clinicians for the complete reporting of AST results were infrequent (1.2% of all the selective AST results reported in 2019). No unintended consequences were observed.

CONCLUSION

The results showed a positive impact of the selective reporting of AST results, but room for improvement is still important.

REGISTRATION AT CLINICAL TRIALS

NCT03612297.

Perception of acceptable antibiotic stewardship strategies in outpatient settings

INTRODUCTION

Antibiotics are still often inappropriately prescribed in France despite specific measures being taken for over 10years. The 25% decrease in antibiotic prescription advocated in the 2011-2016 National Antibiotic Plan seems difficult to achieve. One of the strategies currently considered in France is the use of a specific prescription form dedicated to antibiotics, with an educational message for patients. We aimed to evaluate the acceptability - by primary care prescribers - of this measure and to evaluate their perception of other antibiotic stewardship strategies.

METHODS

Qualitative study conducted among family physicians, pediatricians, dermatologists, dentists, and ENT specialists using semi-structured interviews. A thematic and framework analysis was then performed.

RESULTS

Thirty prescribing physicians practicing in a specific region of France were included in the study. The dedicated prescription form for antibiotics was deemed excessive and questionable. Other measures, not directly targeting prescribers, were rather well perceived: the unit sales of antibiotics, the restricted reporting of susceptibility tests, or the limitation of the number of molecules available in outpatient settings.

CONCLUSION

The results of this exploratory study may guide the national antibiotic stewardship policy in France.

[Qualitative survey of deaf patients concerning perception of their management by general practitioners]

INTRODUCTION

Doctor-patient communication issues affect general practice consultations of deaf patients. The purpose of this study was to obtain the opinions of deaf patients on the care provided by general practitioners and their expectations in order to suggest possible improvements.

METHODS

Qualitative research based on semi-structured interviews with ten deaf patients who use sign language and who mostly consult private general practitioners.

RESULTS

Difficulties were encountered to establish a good quality dialogue between deaf patients and general practitioners. Limited exchanges prevent patients and practitioners from creating a relationship based on trust, without bringing the physicians' skills into question. Problems tended to wane over time and depend on the practitioner's awareness of deaf issues. Deaf patients want to receive care in their own language by means of sign language interpreters or by consulting practitioners who use sign language in a Deaf Patient Reception and Care Unit. They also expect their GP to be able to devote more time to them and to more clearly understand the characteristics of their disability in order to improve their health care.

CONCLUSION

Although general practitioners' skills are not called into question, the doctor-patient relationship is impaired by communication issues, which have a negative impact on deaf patients' care. This could be improved by strengthening deaf patients' information via public health campaigns, by creating a specific fee in the French medical fee classification related to medical procedures on patients with a sensory disability and by developing tools to facilitate medical consultation.