High-prescribing Practices Research Articles

Implementing antibiotic stewardship in high-prescribing English general practices: a mixed-methods study.

Trials have identified antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategies that effectively reduce antibiotic use in primary care. However, many are not commonly used in England. The authors co-developed an implementation intervention to improve use of three AMS strategies: enhanced communication strategies, delayed prescriptions, and point-of-care C-reactive protein tests (POC-CRPTs). To investigate the use of the intervention in high-prescribing practices and its effect on antibiotic prescribing. Nine high-prescribing practices had access to the intervention for 12 months from November 2019. This was primarily delivered remotely via a website with practices required to identify an 'antibiotic champion'. Routinely collected prescribing data were compared between the intervention and the control practices. Intervention use was assessed through monitoring. Surveys and interviews were conducted with professionals to capture experiences of using the intervention. There was no evidence that the intervention affected prescribing. Engagement with intervention materials differed substantially between practices and depended on individual champions' preconceptions of strategies and the opportunity to conduct implementation tasks. Champions in five practices initiated changes to encourage use of at least one AMS strategy, mostly POC-CRPTs; one practice chose all three. POC-CRPTs was used more when allocated to one person. Clinicians need detailed information on exactly how to adopt AMS strategies. Remote, one-sided provision of AMS strategies is unlikely to change prescribing; initial clinician engagement and understanding needs to be monitored to avoid misunderstanding and suboptimal use.

O01 Nuances of implementing antibiotic stewardship in high-prescribing English general practices: an implementation study

BackgroundTrials have identified several antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategies that effectively reduce antibiotic use in primary care. However, many are not commonly used in England and evidence is lacking around how to support high-prescribing general practices to implement AMS. We co-developed a customizable implementation intervention to improve adoption and use of three AMS strategies; enhanced communication strategies with/without patient leaflets, delayed prescriptions, and point-of-care C-reactive protein testing (POC-CRPT). This study aimed to investigate the use of the implementation intervention in high-prescribing practices and its effect on antibiotic prescribing.MethodsNine high-prescribing practices had access to the intervention for 12 months from November 2019. This was primarily delivered remotely via the ‘Antibiotic Optimisation’ website with practices required to identify an in-practice ‘Antibiotic Champion’. In a mixed-methods evaluation, we compared routinely collected prescribing data between 9 intervention and 45 matched control practices using a difference in differences analysis. Intervention material use was assessed through website monitoring and practice requests for supplies. Surveys and interviews were conducted with professionals at baseline and follow-up timepoints to capture experiences of using the intervention.ResultsThere was no evidence that the intervention affected antibiotic prescribing. Engagement with intervention materials differed substantially between practices and depended on the individual Antibiotic Champion's preconceptions regarding the AMS strategies and opportunity to do the implementation tasks. Champions in five practices initiated changes to encourage use of at least one of the three AMS strategies, mostly POC-CRPT and patient leaflets. One Champion used the website resources to drive discussions about implementation of all three strategies in their practice. Elsewhere, lack of website engagement meant clinicians did not recognize novelty in the communication and delayed prescription content. POC-CRPT was used most often when equipment was allocated to one person in a practice.ConclusionsAMS strategies are complex interventions and require clinicians to have detailed knowledge on how to adopt them in practice if they are to reduce antibiotic prescribing. Successful adoption may be achieved by allocating one or two persons to use an AMS strategy rather than all clinicians. Although effective in trials, remote, one-sided provision of AMS strategies is unlikely to change prescribing; initial clinician engagement and understanding needs to be monitored to avoid misunderstanding and suboptimal use.

Polypharmacy composition and patient- and provider-related variation in patients with epilepsy

ObjectiveTo describe polypharmacy composition, and the degree to which patients versus providers contribute to variation in medication fills, in people with epilepsy. MethodsWe performed a retrospective study of Medicare beneficiaries with epilepsy (antiseizure medication plus diagnostic codes) in 2014 (N = 78,048). We described total number of medications and prescribers, and specific medications. Multilevel models evaluated the percentage of variation in two outcomes (1. number of medications per patient-provider dyad, and 2. whether a medication was filled within thirty days of a visit) due to patient-to-patient differences versus provider-to-provider differences. ResultsPatients filled a median of 12 (interquartile range [IQR] 8–17) medications, from median of 5 (IQR 3–7) prescribers. Twenty-two percent filled an opioid, and 61% filled at least three central nervous system medications. Levetiracetam was the most common medication (40%), followed by hydrocodone/acetaminophen (27%). The strongest predictor of medications per patient was Charlson comorbidity index (7.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.2–7.8] additional medications for index 8+ versus 0). Provider-to-provider variation explained 36% of variation in number of medications per patient, whereas patient-to-patient variation explained only 2% of variation. Provider-to-provider variation explained 57% of variation in whether a patient filled a medication within 30 days of a visit, whereas patient-to-patient variation explained only 30% of variation. ConclusionPatients with epilepsy fill a large number of medications from a large number of providers, including high-risk medications. Variation in medication fills was substantially more related to provider-to-provider rather than patient-to-patient variation. The better understanding of drivers of high-prescribing practices may reduce avoidable medication-related harms.

Development of an intervention to support the implementation of evidence-based strategies for optimising antibiotic prescribing in general practice

BackgroundTrials show that antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategies, including communication skills training, point-of-care C-reactive protein testing (POC-CRPT) and delayed prescriptions, help optimise antibiotic prescribing and use in primary care. However, the use of these strategies in general practice is limited and inconsistent. We aimed to develop an intervention to enhance uptake and implementation of these strategies in primary care.MethodsWe drew on the Person-Based Approach to develop an implementation intervention in two stages. (1) Planning and design: We defined the problem in behavioural terms drawing on existing literature and conducting primary qualitative research (nine focus groups) in high-prescribing general practices. We identified ‘guiding principles’ with intervention objectives and key features and developed logic models representing intended mechanisms of action. (2) Developing the intervention: We created prototype intervention materials and discussed and refined these with input from 13 health professionals and 14 citizens in two sets of design workshops. We further refined the intervention materials following think-aloud interviews with 22 health professionals.ResultsFocus groups highlighted uncertainties about how strategies could be used. Health professionals in the workshops suggested having practice champions, brief summaries of each AMS strategy and evidence supporting the AMS strategies, and they and citizens gave examples of helpful communication strategies/phrases. Think-aloud interviews helped clarify and shorten the text and user journey of the intervention materials. The intervention comprised components to support practice-level implementation: antibiotic champions, practice meetings with slides provided, and an ‘implementation support’ website section, and components to support individual-level uptake: website sections on each AMS strategy (with evidence, instructions, links to electronic resources) and material resources (patient leaflets, POC-CRPT equipment, clinician handouts).ConclusionsWe used a systematic, user-focussed process of developing a behavioural intervention, illustrating how it can be used in an implementation context. This resulted in a multicomponent intervention to facilitate practice-wide implementation of evidence-based strategies which now requires implementing and evaluating. Focusing on supporting the uptake and implementation of evidence-based strategies to optimise antibiotic use in general practice is critical to further support appropriate antibiotic use and mitigate antimicrobial resistance.

Implementing interventions to reduce antibiotic use: a qualitative study in high-prescribing practices

BackgroundTrials have shown that delayed antibiotic prescriptions (DPs) and point-of-care C-Reactive Protein testing (POC-CRPT) are effective in reducing antibiotic use in general practice, but these were not typically implemented in high-prescribing practices. We aimed to explore views of professionals from high-prescribing practices about uptake and implementation of DPs and POC-CRPT to reduce antibiotic use.MethodsThis was a qualitative focus group study in English general practices. The highest antibiotic prescribing practices in the West Midlands were invited to participate. Clinical and non-clinical professionals attended focus groups co-facilitated by two researchers. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.ResultsNine practices (50 professionals) participated. Four main themes were identified. Compatibility of strategies with clinical roles and experience – participants viewed the strategies as having limited value as ‘clinical tools’, perceiving them as useful only in ‘rare’ instances of clinical uncertainty and/or for those less experienced. Strategies as ‘social tools’ – participants perceived the strategies as helpful for negotiating treatment decisions and educating patients, particularly those expecting antibiotics. Ambiguities – participants perceived ambiguities around when they should be used, and about their impact on antibiotic use. Influence of context – various other situational and practical issues were raised with implementing the strategies.ConclusionsHigh-prescribing practices do not view DPs and POC-CRPT as sufficiently useful ‘clinical tools’ in a way which corresponds to the current policy approach advocating their use to reduce clinical uncertainty and improve antimicrobial stewardship. Instead, policy attention should focus on how these strategies may instead be used as ‘social tools’ to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use. Attention should also focus on the many ambiguities (concerns and questions) about, and contextual barriers to, using these strategies that need addressing to support wider and more consistent implementation.

Prescription of antibiotics to children with acute otitis media in Danish general practice

BackgroundAcute otitis media (AOM) is a common and most often self-limiting infection in childhood, usually managed in general practice. Even though antibiotics are only recommended when certain diagnostic and clinical criteria are met a high antibiotic prescription rate is observed.The study’s objective was to analyse associations between patient- and general practitioner (GP) characteristics and antibiotic prescribing for children with AOM in an effort to explain the high antibiotic prescribing rates.MethodsAll general practices in the Northern, Southern and Central regions of Denmark were invited to record symptoms, examinations, findings and antibiotic treatment for all children ≤7 years of age diagnosed with AOM during a four-week winter period in 2017/2018. Associations were analysed by means of multivariate logistic regressions. The study design was cross-sectional.ResultsGPs from 60 general practices diagnosed 278 children with AOM of whom 207 (74%) were prescribed antibiotics, most often penicillin V (60%). About half of the children had tympanometry performed. Antibiotic prescribing rates varied considerably between practices (0–100%). Antibiotic prescribing was associated with fever (odds ratio (OR) 3.69 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.93–7.05), purulent ear secretion (OR 2.35 95% CI 1.01–5.50) and poor general condition (OR 3.12 95% CI 1.31–7.46), and the practice’s antibiotic prescribing rate to other patients with symptoms of an acute respiratory tract infection (OR 2.85 CI 95% 1.07–7.60) and specifically to other children with AOM (OR 4.15 CI 95% 1.82–9.47).ConclusionGPs’ antibiotic prescribing rates for children with AOM vary considerably even considering the of signs, symptoms, request for antibiotics, and use of tympanometry. Interventions to reduce overprescribing should be targeted high-prescribing practices.

Investigating the mechanism of impact and differential effect of the Quality Premium scheme on antibiotic prescribing in England: a longitudinal study.

BackgroundIn 2017, approximately 73% of antibiotics in England were prescribed from primary care practices. It has been estimated that 9%–23% of antibiotic prescriptions between 2013 and 2015 were inappropriate. Reducing antibiotic prescribing in primary care was included as one of the national priorities in a financial incentive scheme in 2015–2016.AimTo investigate whether the effects of the Quality Premium (QP), which provided performance-related financial incentives to clinical commissioning groups (CCGs), could be explained by practice characteristics that contribute to variations in antibiotic prescribing.Design & settingLongitudinal monthly prescribing data were analysed for 6251 primary care practices in England from April 2014 to March 2016.MethodLinear generalised estimating equations models were fitted, examining the effect of the 2015–2016 QP on the number of antibiotic items per specific therapeutic group age–sex related prescribing unit (STAR-PU) prescribed, adjusting for seasonality and months since implementation. Consistency of effects after further adjustment for variations in practice characteristics were also examined, including practice workforce, comorbidities prevalence, prescribing rates of non-antibiotic drugs, and deprivation.ResultsAntibiotics prescribed in primary care practices in England reduced by -0.172 items per STAR-PU (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.180 to -0.171) after 2015–2016 QP implementation, with slight increases in the months following April 2015 (+0.014 items per STAR-PU; 95% CI = +0.013 to +0.014). Adjusting the model for practice characteristics, the immediate and month-on-month effects following implementation remained consistent, with slight attenuation in immediate reduction from -0.172 to -0.166 items per STAR-PU. In subgroup analysis, the QP effect was significantly greater among the top 20% prescribing practices (interaction p<0.001). Practices with low workforce and those with higher diabetes prevalence had greater reductions in prescribing following 2015–2016 QP compared with other practices (interaction p<0.001).ConclusionIn high-prescribing practices, those with low workforce and high diabetes prevalence had more reduction following the QP compared with other practices, highlighting the need for targeted support of these practices and appropriate resourcing of primary care.

Assessment of Second-Generation Diabetes Medication Initiation Among Medicare Enrollees From 2007 to 2015

Little is known about how new and expensive drugs diffuse into practice affects health care costs. To describe the variation in second-generation diabetes drug use among Medicare enrollees between 2007 and 2015. This population-based, cross-sectional study included data from 100% of Medicare Parts A, B, and D enrollees who first received diabetes drug therapy from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2015. Patients with type 1 diabetes were excluded. Data were analyzed beginning in the spring of 2018, and revisions were completed in 2019. For each patient, the initial diabetes drug choice was determined; drugs were classified as first generation (ie, approved before 2000) or second generation (ie, approved after 2000, including dipeptidyl peptidase 4 [DPP-4] inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 [GLP-1] receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 [SGLT-2] inhibitors). The primary outcome was the between-practice variation in use of second-generation diabetes drugs between 2007 and 2015. Practices with use rates of second-generation diabetes drugs more than 1 SD above the mean were considered high prescribing, while those with use rates more than 1 SD below the mean were considered low prescribing. Among 1 182 233 patients who initiated diabetes drug therapy at 42 977 practices between 2007 and 2015, 1 104 718 (93.4%) were prescribed a first-generation drug (mean [SD] age, 75.4 [6.7] years; 627 134 [56.8%] women) and 77 515 (6.6%) were prescribed a second-generation drug (mean [SD] age, 76.5 [7.2] years; 44 697 [57.7%] women). By December 2015, 22 457 practices (52.2%) had used DPP-4 inhibitors once, compared with 3593 practices (8.4%) that had used a GLP-1 receptor agonist once. Furthermore, 17 452 practices (40.6%) were using DPP-4 inhibitors in 10% of eligible patients, while 1286 practices (3.0%) were using GLP-1 receptor agonists in 10% of eligible patients, and SGLT-2 inhibitors, available after March 2013, were used at least once by 1716 practices (4.0%) and used in 10% of eligible patients by 872 practices (2.0%) by December 2015. According to Poisson random-effect regression models, beneficiaries in high-prescribing practices were more than 3-fold more likely to receive DPP-4 inhibitors (relative risk, 3.55 [95% CI, 3.42-3.68]), 24-fold more likely to receive GLP-1 receptor agonists (relative risk, 24.06 [95% CI, 14.14-40.94]) and 60-fold more likely to receive SGLT-2 inhibitors (relative risk, 60.41 [95% CI, 15.99-228.22]) compared with beneficiaries in low-prescribing practices. These findings suggest that there was substantial between-practice variation in the use of second-generation diabetes drugs between 2007 and 2015, with a concentration of use among a few prescribers and practices responsible for much of the early diffusion.

Conceptualising the Integration of Strategies by Clinical Commissioning Groups in England towards the Antibiotic Prescribing Targets for the Quality Premium Financial Incentive Scheme: A Short Report.

Background: In order to tackle the public health threat of antimicrobial resistance, improvement in antibiotic prescribing in primary care was included as one of the priorities of the Quality Premium (QP) financial incentive scheme for Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England. This paper briefly reports the outcome of a workshop exploring the experiences of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) leads within CCGs in selecting and adopting strategies to help achieve the QP antibiotic targets. Methods: We conducted a thematic analysis of the notes on discussions and observations from the workshop to identify key themes. Results: Practice visits, needs assessment, peer feedback and audits were identified as strategies integrated in increasing engagement with practices towards the QP antibiotic targets. The conceptual model developed by AMS leads demonstrated possible pathways for the impact of the QP on antibiotic prescribing. Participants raised a concern that the constant targeting of high prescribing practices for AMS interventions might lead to disengagement by these practices. Most of the participants suggested that the effect of the QP might be less about the financial incentive and more about having national targets and guidelines that promote antibiotic prudency. Conclusions: Our results suggest that national targets, rather than financial incentives are key for engaging stakeholders in quality improvement in antibiotic prescribing.

General practitioners\u2019 accounts of negotiating antibiotic prescribing decisions with patients: a qualitative study on what influences antibiotic prescribing in low, medium and high prescribing practices

BackgroundAntimicrobial resistance (AMR) is high on the UK public health policy agenda, and poses challenges to patient safety and the provision of health services. Widespread prescribing of antibiotics is thought to increase AMR, and mostly takes place in primary medical care. However, prescribing rates vary substantially between general practices. The aim of this study was to understand contextual factors related to general practitioners’ (GPs) antibiotic prescribing behaviour in low, high, and around the mean (medium) prescribing primary care practices.MethodsQualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 41 GPs working in North-West England. Participants were purposively sampled from practices with low, medium, and high antibiotic prescribing rates adjusted for the number and characteristics of patients registered in a practice. The interviews were analysed thematically.ResultsThis study found that optimizing antibiotic prescribing creates tensions for GPs, particularly in doctor-patient communication during a consultation. GPs balanced patient expectations and their own decision-making in their communication. When not prescribing antibiotics, GPs reported the need for supportive mechanisms, such as regular practice meetings, within the practice, and in the wider healthcare system (e.g. longer consultation times). In low prescribing practices, GPs reported that increasing dialogue with colleagues, having consistent patterns of prescribing within the practice, supportive practice policies, and enough resources such as consultation time were important supports when not prescribing antibiotics.ConclusionsInsight into GPs’ negotiations with patient and public health demands, and consistent and supportive practice-level policies can help support prudent antibiotic prescribing among primary care practices.

Reducing inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics in English primary care: evidence and outlook.

Antibiotics are indispensable for treating bacterial infections, but their effectiveness is threatened by the emergence and spread of antibacterial resistance. Antibiotics are unique among drugs since the more they are used, the less effective they become because bacterial resistance is likely to develop. In response to this threat, the UK government aims to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in humans by 50% by 2020. A team at Public Health England has found that at least 20% of antibiotic prescriptions in primary care in England were inappropriate, which, if correct, implies that antibiotic prescribing nationally needs to be reduced by 10% by 2020. These data are published in five articles in a Supplement to JAC entitled Appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing in English primary care. Inappropriate prescribing was found in every general practice included in the analyses so each one should attempt to reduce unnecessary prescriptions, not just high-prescribing practices. An ambition of 10% reduction in antibiotic prescriptions seems attainable when compared with the reduction targets of other European countries. The need for substantial improvements in data quality that are necessary to further safeguard this precious resource is also highlighted by the authors in this Supplement.

Identifying practice-related factors for high-volume prescribers of antibiotics in Danish general practice.

In Denmark, general practice is responsible for 75% of antibiotic prescribing in the primary care sector. We aimed to identify practice-related factors associated with high prescribers, including prescribers of critically important antibiotics as defined by WHO, after accounting for case mix by practice. We performed a nationwide register-based survey of antibiotic prescribing in Danish general practice from 2012 to 2013. The unit of analysis was the individual practice. We used multivariable regression analyses and an assessment of relative importance to identify practice-related factors driving high antibiotic prescribing rates. We included 98% of general practices in Denmark ( n = 1962) and identified a 10% group of high prescribers who accounted for 15% of total antibiotic prescriptions and 18% of critically important antibiotic prescriptions. Once case mix had been accounted for, the following practice-related factors were associated with being a high prescriber: lack of access to diagnostic tests in practice (C-reactive protein and urine culture); high use of diagnostic tests (urine culture and strep A throat test); a low percentage of antibiotic prescriptions issued over the phone compared with all antibiotic prescriptions; and a high number of consultations per 1000 patients. We also found that a low number of consultations per 1000 patients was associated with a reduced likelihood of being a high prescriber of antibiotics. An apparent underuse or overuse of diagnostic tests in general practice as well as organizational factors were associated with high-prescribing practices. Furthermore, the choice of antibiotic type seemed less rational among high prescribers.

Patient factors associated with SSRI dose for depression treatment in general practice: a primary care cross sectional study

BackgroundAntidepressant prescribing continues to rise. Increased long-term prescribing and higher doses are contributing to current growth; however, patient factors associated with the use of higher doses remain unknown. This study’s aim was to investigate patient factors associated with selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SSRI) prescribed daily dose for depression treatment in general practice.MethodsA stratified sample of low to high prescribing practices were selected. Routine individual patient-level data were extracted one practice at a time: September 2009 to January 2011. Patients included were ≥18 years, and prescribed an SSRI for depression. Logistic regression analysis was undertaken to assess individual predictor variables on SSRI daily dose by standard therapeutic dose versus higher dose, as SSRIs demonstrate flat dose response curves for depression treatment. Predictor variables included: age, gender, deprivation, co-morbidity, smoking status, being prescribed the same SSRI for ≥2 years, and patients’ general practice. For a subgroup of patients a second sub-group analysis included long-term benzodiazepine and/or z-hypnotic (B&Z) as a predictor variable.ResultsInter-practice SSRI prescribing varied significantly; practice point prevalence ranged from 2.5% (94/3697) to 11.9% (359/3007) of the practice population ≥18 years old; median 7.3% (250/3421) (χ2 = 2277.2, df = 10, p < 0.001). Overall point prevalence was 6.3% (3518/52575), with 5.8% (3066/52575) prescribed SSRIs for depression of whom 84.7% (2596/3066) had data for regression analysis. Higher SSRI doses were significantly associated with, in descending order of magnitude, individual practice attended, being prescribed the same SSRI for ≥2 years (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.80, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.17, p < 0.001) and living in a more deprived area (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.16, p = 0.009). Higher SSRI doses in the B&Z subgroup were significantly associated with individual practice attended, being prescribed a long-term B&Z (OR 2.05 95% CI 1.47 to 2.86, p < 0.001) and being prescribed the same SSRI for ≥2 years (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.47, p < 0.001).ConclusionHigher SSRI doses for depression were associated with practice attended and being prescribed the same antidepressant for ≥2 years. As long-term antidepressant use increases, the use of higher doses may further contribute to prescribing growth.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-014-0210-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Variations in anxiolytic and hypnotic prescribing by GPs: a cross-sectional analysis using data from the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework

Wide variations in anxiolytic and hypnotic prescribing by GPs in England have been described, but are largely unexplained. To examine the relationships between the volume of anxiolytics and hypnotics prescribed by GPs and their practice characteristics, population demography, and performance indicators. Cross-sectional study. All general practices in England. A dataset was constructed for 8469 (98.8%) general practices including: standardised prescribing volume data for anxiolytics and hypnotics (average daily quantities per 1000 STAR-PUs [Specific Therapeutic group Age-sex weightings Related Prescribing Units]), practice descriptors, Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004, ethnicity data (2001 UK Census), and Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) data. The standardised volume of anxiolytics and hypnotics prescribed varied eightfold between practices on the 5th and 95th centiles. A regression model was constructed which explained 20.5% of the variation. Higher prescribing practices were located in more deprived areas (standardised beta 0.31), but also in areas with a lower proportion of ethnic minorities (black or black British = -0.22; Asian or Asian British = -0.12). Higher volumes were also prescribed by practices with lower QOF scores ('Clinical Care' domain = -0.12; 'Organisational' domain = -0.08). Other significant but weaker predictors were: lower proportions of female GPs, higher recorded prevalence of serious mental illness and non-training status. The proportion of GPs trained outside UK was not a predictor. Demographic factors were more powerful determinants of prescribing than characteristics of the practice itself. Nevertheless, the findings provide some support for the notion that high prescribing practices were less well developed, in that their QOF scores were lower and they were less likely to be training practices.