Prescribing In Primary Care Research Articles

Optimizing responsiveness to feedback about antibiotic prescribing in primary care: protocol for two interrelated randomized implementation trials with embedded process evaluations

BackgroundAudit and feedback (A&F) that shows how health professionals compare to those of their peers, can be an effective intervention to reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing among family physicians. However, the most impactful design approach to A&F to achieve this aim is uncertain. We will test three design modifications of antibiotic A&F that could be readily scaled and sustained if shown to be effective: (1) inclusion of case-mix-adjusted peer comparator versus a crude comparator, (2) emphasizing harms, rather than lack of benefits, and (3) providing a viral prescription pad.MethodsWe will conduct two interrelated pragmatic randomized trials in January 2021. One trial will include family physicians in Ontario who have signed up to receive their MyPractice: Primary Care report from Ontario Health (“OH Trial”). These physicians will be cluster-randomized by practice, 1:1 to intervention or control. The intervention group will also receive a Viral Prescription Pad mailed to their office as well as added emphasis in their report on use of the pad. Ontario family physicians who have not signed up to receive their MyPractice: Primary Care report will be included in the other trial administered by Public Health Ontario (“PHO Trial”). These physicians will be allocated 4:1 to intervention or control. The intervention group will be further randomized by two factors: case-mix adjusted versus unadjusted comparator and emphasis or not on harms of antibiotics. Physicians in the intervention arm of this trial will receive one of four versions of a personalized antibiotic A&F letter from PHO. For both trials, the primary outcome is the antibiotic prescribing rate per 1000 patient visits, measured at 6 months post-randomization, the primary analysis will use Poisson regression and we will follow the intention to treat principle. A mixed-methods process evaluation will use surveys and interviews with family physicians to explore potential mechanisms underlying the observed effects, exploring targeted constructs including intention, self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, descriptive norms, and goal prioritization.DiscussionThis protocol describes the rationale and methodology of two interrelated pragmatic trials testing variations of theory-informed components of an audit and feedback intervention to determine how to optimize A&F interventions for antibiotic prescribing in primary care.Trial registrationNCT04594200, NCT05044052. CIHR Grant ID: 398514

Statin treatment effectiveness and the SLCO1B1*5 reduced function genotype: Long-term outcomes in women and men.

ObjectiveTo estimate the effect of rs4149056 (SLCO1B1*5) genotype (decreases statin transport) on cholesterol control and treatment duration in male and female primary care patients prescribed common statin medications.Methods and AnalysisThis study comprised 69 185 European‐ancestry UK Biobank cohort participants prescribed simvastatin or atorvastatin (aged 40‐79 years at first prescription, treatment duration 1 month to 29 years, mean 5.7 years). Principal outcomes were clinically high total cholesterol (>5 mmol/L) at baseline, plus treatment discontinuation.ResultsA total of 48.4% of 591 females homozygous for SLCO1B1*5 decreased function genotype had raised cholesterol vs 41.7% of those with functioning SLCO1B1 (odds ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1‐1.55, P = .001). Fewer males had high cholesterol and the genotype effect was attenuated. In primary care prescribing, females homozygous for SLCO1B1*5 were more likely to stop receiving these statins (29.5%) than women with normal SLCO1B1 (25.7%) (hazard ratio [HR] 1.19, 95% CI 1.03‐1.37, P = .01), amounting to five discontinuations per 100 statin‐years in the SLCO1B1*5 group vs four in the normal SLCO1B1 function group. This remained significant after the first year of treatment (HR for discontinuing >1 year after first prescription 1.3, 95% CI 1.08‐1.56, P = .006). In men SLCO1B1*5 was only associated with treatment discontinuation in the first year.ConclusionsIn this large community sample of patients on commonly prescribed statins, the SLCO1B1*5 decreased function variant had much larger effects on cholesterol control and treatment duration in women than in men. Efforts to improve the effectiveness of statin therapy in women may need to include SLCO1B1*5 genotype‐guided statin selection.

Medicines prescribed by non-medical independent prescribers in primary care in Wales: a 10-year longitudinal study April 2011–March 2021

ObjectivesThe therapeutic classes of medicines prescribed by non-medical independent prescribers (NMIPs) working in primary care in Wales has not been studied in detail. The aim of this study was to...

Observational retrospective study calculating health service costs of patients receiving surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis in England, using linked patient-level primary and secondary care electronic data

ObjectivesChronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) symptoms are experienced by an estimated 11% of UK adults, and symptoms have major impacts on quality of life. Data from UK and elsewhere suggest high economic...

Calcineurin inhibitors and related medicines: a cohort study examining England's primary care prescription changes during the COVID-19 pandemic (January 2019 to March 2021).

PurposeTo examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on calcineurin inhibitors and related prescriptions for community patients in England.MethodsData from all primary-care patients who had calcineurin inhibitors prescriptions, dispensed in the community in England were included. Descriptive statistics and interrupted time series analysis over 27 months (15 months before and 12 months after 1st lockdown) was evaluated.ResultsDescriptive statistics show that mean values have declined since the pandemic’s onset. Over the 27 months: mean Tacrolimus 865,045 doses, standard deviation (SD) 76,147 doses, with 95% CI 834,923, 895,168, (min 567,508, max 1,010,900), ciclosporin 315,496 doses, SD 40,094, 95% CI 299,635, 331,356 (min 191,281, max 382,253) and sirolimus 21,384 doses, SD 2,610, 95% CI 20,352, 22,417 (min 13,022, max 26,156). Analysis of variance between the pre- and post- periods show significant variations in quantities of tacrolimus F 7.432, p = 0.012, ciclosporin F 33.147, p < 0.001 and sirolimus F 18.596, p < 0.001 (1df), mirrored in price analysis. The Interrupted Time Series (ARIMA Modelling) shows declining trends. After the pandemic's onset, a statistically significant downward trend in quantity for tacrolimus p = 0.008 is observed, with an estimated monthly decline of 14,524 doses, ciclosporin p = 0.185, with an estimated decline of 2,161 doses and sirolimus p = 0.002 with an estimated decline of 485 doses, along with declining prices.ConclusionA decrease in prescription medicines use raises concerns for the care of (renal) transplant patients. Patients are encouraged to discuss their planned care with their doctor, secure supplies and remain adherent to their medication.Graphical abstract Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40199-021-00431-7.

P498 Sources of excess steroid prescriptions and clinical adverse outcomes associated with steroid excess: The Leeds Steroids study

Abstract Background This retrospective study aims to determine steroid prescription practice across primary and secondary care, quantify the proportion of primary care prescriptions communicated to secondary care, and assess outcomes associated with excessive steroid use. Methods The study cohort consists of all patients attending IBD clinics under Leeds Teaching Hospitals from 1/1/2016 to 31/12/2017 with linked primary care records. Data were extracted from the hospital’s electronic health record. Steroid excess was defined based on ECCO guidelines. Cases with excess were reviewed to determine if escalation was implemented, appropriateness of escalation, timeliness of that (within 6 weeks of steroid course) and whether steroid excess was unavoidable. Results 2246 patients were included in the study (Mage: 47.26 y; 47.6% male; 46.4% CD, 46.8% UC; 36.2% of CD patients on thiopurines, 26.3% on biologics; 78.8% of UC patients on 5-ASA, 21.4% thiopurines, 5.6% biologics). During the study period 32.9% of patients were exposed to steroids (77.4% of steroid prescriptions issued for IBD, 27.5% of prescriptions for IBD originating from primary care). Significantly more prescriptions from secondary care were of appropriate dose and duration compared to primary care (84.7% vs 40.7%, p&amp;lt;0.001). Secondary care was made aware within six weeks of steroid initiation in 60.3% of steroid courses prescribed by primary care. 49.5% of patients flared after being prescribed steroids from primary care, compared to 39.1% from secondary care, p=0.003. Steroid excess was observed in 14.5% of patients and was related to IBD in 76% of them. In patients with steroid excess due to their IBD; excess was acted upon in 82.8% of patients (77.5% had treatment escalation). Escalation was considered appropriate in 98.9% of patients however, it was timely in 62.4% of patients and steroid excess was unavoidable in 47.6%. Patients with steroid excess due to IBD had significantly more hospital admissions for IBD (p&amp;lt;0.001), hospital admissions for infections (p=0.036) and more antibiotic courses prescribed by GP (p=0.023) compared to patients without steroid excess. Conclusion Steroid prescribing for IBD flares originating from primary care is common however, steroid dose and duration are frequently inappropriate, and more than one third of courses are not communicated to secondary care in a timely manner. A significantly higher amount of patients flare again after being prescribed steroids by primary care. Finally, over 50% of steroid excess is potentially avoidable and steroid excess is related to negative consequences such as IBD admissions, admissions for infections and antibiotic prescriptions.

COVID-19 and Antibiotic Prescribing in Pediatric Primary Care.

With the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, pediatric ambulatory encounter volume and antibiotic prescribing both decreased; however, the durability of these reductions in pediatric primary care in the United States has not been assessed. We conducted a retrospective observational study to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated public health measures on antibiotic prescribing in 27 pediatric primary care practices. Encounters from January 1, 2018, through June 30, 2021, were included. The primary outcome was monthly antibiotic prescriptions per 1000 patients. Interrupted time series analysis was performed. There were 69 327 total antibiotic prescriptions from April through December in 2019 and 18 935 antibiotic prescriptions during the same months in 2020, a 72.7% reduction. The reduction in prescriptions at visits for respiratory tract infection (RTI) accounted for 87.3% of this decrease. Using interrupted time series analysis, overall antibiotic prescriptions decreased from 31.6 to 6.4 prescriptions per 1000 patients in April 2020 (difference of -25.2 prescriptions per 1000 patients; 95% CI: -32.9 to -17.5). This was followed by a nonsignificant monthly increase in antibiotic prescriptions, with prescribing beginning to rebound from April to June 2021. Encounter volume also immediately decreased, and while overall encounter volume quickly started to recover, RTI encounter volume returned more slowly. Reductions in antibiotic prescribing in pediatric primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic were sustained, only beginning to rise in 2021, primarily driven by reductions in RTI encounters. Reductions in viral RTI transmission likely played a substantial role in reduced RTI visits and antibiotic prescriptions.

PrAna: an R package to calculate and visualize England NHS primary care prescribing data

BackgroundThe objective of this work to calculate prescribed quantity of an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) in prescription medications for human use, to facilitate research on the prediction of amount of API released to the environment and create an open-data tool to facilitate spatiotemporal and long-term prescription trends for wider usage.DesignWe have developed an R package, PrAna to calculate the prescribed quantity (in kg) of an APIs by postcode using England’s national level prescription data provided by National Health Service, for the years 2015–2018. Datasets generated using PrAna can be visualized in a real-time interactive web-based tool, PrAnaViz to explore spatiotemporal and long-term trends. The visualisations can be customised by selecting month, year, API, and region.ResultsPrAnaViz’s targeted API approach is demonstrated with the visualisation of prescribed quantities of 14 APIs in the Bath and North East Somerset (BANES) region during 2018. Once the APIs list is loaded, the back end retrieves relevant data and populates the graphs based on user-defined data features in real-time. These plots include the prescribed quantity of APIs over a year, by month, and individual API by month, general practice, postcode, and medicinal form. The non-targeted API approach is demonstrated with the visualisation of clarithromycin prescribed quantities at different postcodes in the BANES region.ConclusionPrAna and PrAnaViz enables the analysis of spatio-temporal and long-term trends with prescribed quantities of different APIs by postcode. This can be used as a support tool for policymakers, academics and researchers in public healthcare, and environmental scientist to monitor different group of pharmaceuticals emitted to the environment and for prospective risk assessment of pharmaceuticals in the environment.

Examining the association between socio-demographic factors, catheter use and antibiotic prescribing in Northern Ireland primary care: a cross-sectional multilevel analysis.

Abstract Inappropriate use of antibiotics is among the key drivers of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Antibiotic use in Northern Ireland (NI) is the highest in the UK and approximately 80% is prescribed in primary care. Little information however exists about the patient and prescriber factors driving this. We described the trend in NI primary care total antibiotic prescribing 2010–2019 and conducted a cross-sectional study using a random sample of individuals registered with an NI GP on 1st January 2019. We used multilevel logistic regression to examine how sociodemographic factors and urinary catheter use was associated with the likelihood of being prescribed an antibiotic during 2019, adjusting for clustering at GP practice and GP federation levels. Finite mixture modelling (FMM) was conducted to determine the association between the aforementioned risk factors and quantity of antibiotic prescribed (defined daily doses). The association between age and antibiotic prescription differed by gender. Compared to males 41–50 years, adjusted odds of prescription were higher for males aged 0–10, 11–20 and 51 + years, and females of any age. Catheter use was strongly associated with antibiotic prescription (aOR = 6.82, 95% CI 2.50–18.64). Socioeconomic deprivation and urban/rural settlement were not associated in the multilevel logistic analysis. GP practices and federations accounted for 1.24% and 0.12% of the variation in antibiotic prescribing respectively. FMM showed associations between larger quantities of antibiotics and being older, male and having a catheter. This work described the profile of individuals most likely to receive an antibiotic prescription in NI primary care and identified GP practice as a source of variation; suggesting an opportunity for reduction from effective interventions targeted at both individuals and general practices.

A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of the Feasibility of a Medical Management-Based Text Messaging Intervention Combined With Buprenorphine in Primary Care.

Background:Mobile health (mHealth) tools offer an effective and personalized approach to enhance chronic disease management and may partially offset provider-level barriers to increasing buprenorphine prescribing in primary care. This study assessed the feasibility of integrating a text messaging-based medical management tool (TeMeS) in primary care among patients initiating buprenorphine.Methods:TeMeS messages are categorized per the medical management model, programed in a HIPAA-compliant texting software (Apptoto©), and delivered in a tiered fashion over 8-weeks to patients. This mixed-methods evaluation of TeMeS utilized key stakeholder feedback (patients, physicians, administrators, nursing), text messaging software process measures, thematic analysis of patient participant text message content, and electronic administrative data (eg, appointment adherence, treatment retention) at 2-months.Results:The study team approached 65 patients and n = 14 (21%) were ineligible or declined to participate in the study. Most eligible participants owned a smartphone (90%), responded to at least one text query (88%) over an average of 24 days, and few requested to stop receiving texts (6%). Participant text replies included responses to cognitive behavioral therapy-based queries (13.8%), confirming or rescheduling appointments (6.1%), and insurance, pharmacy, or clinical issues pertaining to buprenorphine dispensation or dosing (2%). Suggestions for design modifications included personalizing message content and adjusting message frequency per patient risk of illicit opioid reuse, use of video-based informational content, and real-time provider and staff support for emergent issues.Conclusion:Our findings highlight the acceptability, feasibility, and high rates of engagement of utilizing text messaging to enhance self-management among patients initiating buprenorphine treatment.

Biomarker-guided antibiotics prescription for lower respiratory tract infections in primary care : CRP or PCT ?

Lower respiratory tract infections are a frequent cause of excessive antibiotic prescription. The use of CRP and PCT has been evaluated by recent trials as a mean to assist antibiotic prescription. These studies suggest a safe reduction of antibiotic usage when prescription is guided by biomarkers. There is at the moment no evidence benefiting one of the biomarkers over the other, but a recent Swiss trial could suggest an added benefit for PCT. For now, PCT is less available, more expensive and not reimbursed. Democratization of its use, and/or clear thresholds for the use of CRP are additional ways that could participate to reduce excessive antibiotic prescription in primary care.

Comparison of pediatric antibiotic prescribing practice between low and high prescribers for children in primary care.

Antibiotic prescribing is more prevalent in children. Many factors influence this practice, including the burden of outpatient visits. We aimed to compare antibiotic prescribing for children by low prescribers (LP) and high prescribers (HP) in primary care. We analyzed pediatric prescriptions in primary care in Istanbul. Among the physicians randomly selected by systematic sampling, those generating ≥1 pediatric prescription/day (n=1218) were defined as LP or HP when they belonged to the lowest (n=305) or highest (n=304) quartile of prescribing, respectively. The antibiotic prescribing characteristics of these groups were compared. We identified that 38.5% of the prescriptions written by physicians included antibiotics, significantly higher in HPs (38.8%) than in LPs (37.2%), (p=0.04). Among antibiotic-containing prescriptions, the mean number of drugs and boxes and the percentage of prescriptions containing injectable drugs/antibiotics were significantly higher in HPs compared to that in LPs. We detected that co-amoxiclav was the most frequently prescribed antibiotic in the LP and HP groups (61.1% and 48.3%, respectively). Stratification of antibiotics by their spectra showed that 11.2% were narrow, 79.8% were broad and 0.5% were ultra-broad-spectrum drugs. LPs were significantly more likely to prescribe broad-spectrum antibiotics (82.5%) than do HPs (78.9%,p < 0.001). Antibiotic prescribing remains excessive in pediatric primary care, slightly more marked in HPs. While HPs also tend to prescribe a higher number of overall and injectable drugs/antibiotics, broad-spectrum anti-biotherapy seems to be more practiced by LPs surprisingly. Both physician groups appeared to prefer either narrow- or broad-spectrum drugs without paying enough attention to their pharmacodynamic properties.

Ridurre la prescrizione di antibiotici nelle cure primarie: dai test point-of-care in ambulatorio alla gestione della comunicazione senza rinunciare alle prove di efficacia

Strategies for reducing antibiotic prescriptions in primary care: from point-of-care tests in the clinic to managing communication without giving up evidence of efficacy The Point-of-care test (POCT) is a diagnostic test that can be performed in the outpatient clinic or at the patient’s bedside; the simplicity of execution and the availability of the result of POCT during the visit has led to a strong diffusion of these diagnostic aids. The results of the trial reviewed in the article of the month show a lack of effectiveness of a POCT, detecting 18 viruses and 3 bacteria, in reducing antibiotic prescribing in children visited for respiratory infection. The commentary explores other possible strategies, besides POCTs, to reduce antibiotic therapy in paediatric respiratory infections.

Introducing antimicrobial stewardship to the outpatient clinics of a suburban academic health system.

Objective:To establish an antimicrobial stewardship program in the outpatient setting.Design:Prescribers of antimicrobials were asked to complete a survey regarding antimicrobial stewardship. We also monitored their compliance with appropriate prescribing practices, which were shared in monthly quality improvement reports.Setting:The study was performed at Loyola University Health System, an academic teaching healthcare system in a metropolitan suburban environment.Participants:Prescribers of antimicrobials across 19 primary care and 3 immediate- and urgent-care clinics.Methods:The voluntary survey was developed using SurveyMonkeyand was distributed via e-mail. Data were collected anonymously. Rates of compliance with appropriate prescribing practices were abstracted from electronic health records and assessed by 3 metrics: (1) avoidance of antibiotics in adult acute bronchitis and appropriate antibiotic treatment in (2) patients tested for pharyngitis and (3) children with upper respiratory tract infections.Results:Prescribers were highly knowledgeable about what constitutes appropriate prescribing; verified compliance rates were highly concordant with self-reported rates. Nearly all prescribers were concerned about resistance, but fewer than half believed antibiotics were overprescribed in their office. Among respondents, 74% reported intense pressure from patients to prescribe antimicrobials inappropriately. Immediate- and urgent-care prescribers had higher rates of compliance than primary-care prescribers, and the latter group responded well to monthly reports and online educational resources.Conclusions:Intense pressure from patients to prescribe antimicrobials when they are not indicated leads to overprescribing, an effect compounded by the importance of patient satisfaction scores. Compliance reporting improved the number of appropriate antibiotics prescribed in the primary care setting.

Influence of provider type on chronic pain prescribing patterns A systematic review.

Chronic pain affects 100 million Americans and is most often treated in primary care, where the health care provider shortage remains a challenge. Nurse practitioners (NPs) represent a growing solution, yet their patterns of chronic pain management are understudied. Additionally, prescriptive authority limitations in many states limit NPs from prescribing opioids and often exist due to concerns of NP-driven opioid overprescribing. Little evidence on NP pain management prescribing patterns exists to address these issues. Systematic review, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, to examine opioid and nonopioid prescribing patterns of physicians, NPs, and physician assistants (PAs) in primary care. Eligible studies scored ≥60% on the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal checklist. Searches within PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Three themes were elucidated: 1) opioid prescribing in primary care, 2) similarities and differences in opioid prescribing by provider type, and 3) nonopioid pain management strategies. All provider groups had similar opioid prescribing patterns, although NPs and PAs may be slightly less likely to prescribe opioids than physicians. Although some studies suggested that NPs/PAs had higher opioid prescribing rates compared with physicians, methodological flaws may undermine these conclusions. Evidence is also lacking on nonopioid prescribing patterns across disciplines. Nurse practitioner/PA prescriptive authority limitations may not be as effective of a solution for addressing opioid overprescribing as transdisciplinary interventions targeting the highest subset of opioid prescribers. Future research should examine prescribing patterns of nonopioid, including nonpharmacologic, therapies.

Respiratory antibacterial prescribing in primary care and the COVID-19 pandemic in England, winter season 2020-21.

BackgroundAntibacterial prescribing for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) accounts for almost half of all prescribing in primary care. Nearly a quarter of antibacterial prescribing in primary care is estimated to be inappropriate, the greatest being for RTIs. The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the provision of healthcare services and impacted the levels of antibacterials prescribed.ObjectivesTo describe the changes in community antibacterial prescribing for RTIs in winter 2020–21 in England.MethodsRTI antibacterial prescribing was measured in prescription items/1000 population for primary care from January 2014 and in DDDs/1000 population/day for the totality of RTI prescribing [combined with Accident & Emergency (A&E) in secondary care], from January 2016 to February 2021. Trends were assessed using negative binomial regression and seasonally adjusted interrupted time-series analysis.ResultsAntibacterials prescribed for RTIs reduced by a further 12.4% per season compared with pre-COVID (P < 0.001). In winter 2020–21, RTI prescriptions almost halved compared with the previous winter in 2019–20 (P < 0.001). The trend observed for total RTI prescribing (primary care with A&E) was similar to that observed in the community alone.ConclusionsDuring COVID-19, RTI prescribing reduced in the community and the expected rise in winter was not seen in 2020–21. We found no evidence that RTI prescribing shifted from primary care to A&E in secondary care. The most likely explanation is a decrease in RTIs and presentations to primary care associated with national prevention measures for COVID-19.

Coping With Diagnostic Uncertainty in Antibiotic Prescribing: A Latent Class Study of Primary Care Physicians in Hubei China.

Background: Misuse of antibiotics is prevalent worldwide and primary care is a major contributor. Although a clear diagnosis is fundamental for rational antibiotic use, primary care physicians often struggle with diagnostic uncertainty. However, we know little about how physicians cope with this situation and its association with antibiotic prescribing.Methods: A total of 583 primary care physicians were surveyed using the Dealing with Uncertainty Questionnaire. Their prescriptions (n = 949,181) over the year 2018 were retrieved retrospectively. Two categories of behavioral patterns of participants were identified based on latent class analyses (high vs. low openness and collaborativeness) in responding to diagnostic uncertainty. Multi-level logistic regression models were established to determine the associations between these behavioral patterns and antibiotic prescribing (overall and broad-spectrum antibiotics) for illness without an indication for antibiotics and those with a conditional indication for antibiotics, respectively, after adjustment for variations of patient (level one) and physician (level two) characteristics.Results: Most physicians reported open communications with their patients (80.96%), collected further information (85.08%), and referred patients to specialists (68.95%) in dealing with diagnostic uncertainly. More than half (56.95%) sought help from colleagues. Less than 20% acted on intuition or adopted a “wait and see” strategy. About 40% participants (n = 238) were classified into the group of low openness and collaborativeness in coping with diagnostic uncertainty. They were more likely to prescribe antibiotics for the recorded illness without an indication for antibiotics (AOR = 1.013 for all antibiotics, p = 0.024; AOR = 1.047 for broad-spectrum antibiotics, p < 0.001), as well as for the recorded illness with a conditional indication for antibiotics (AOR = 1.226 for all antibiotic, p < 0.001; AOR = 1.257 for broad-spectrum antibiotics, p < 0.001).Conclusion: Low tolerance with diagnostic uncertainty is evident in primary care. Inappropriate and over antibiotic prescribing is shaped by physicians' coping methods of diagnostic uncertainty. Physicians' openness and collaborativeness in responding to diagnostic uncertainty is associated with lower antibiotic prescribing in primary care. Interventions targeting on better management of diagnostic uncertainty may offer a promising approach in reducing antibiotic use in primary care.

162. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Antibiotic Prescribing in Pediatric Primary Care

BackgroundWith the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, pediatric primary care delivery changed rapidly. Prior studies have demonstrated a reduction in ambulatory encounters and antibiotic prescriptions with the pandemic onset; however, the durability of these reductions in pediatric primary care in the United States has not been assessed. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated public health measures (e.g. social distancing, masking, school closures, and increased availability of telemedicine) on antibiotic prescribing and encounter volume in 27 pediatric primary care practices, and the duration of these changes. Patients under age 19 with an encounter from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020 were included. The primary outcome was monthly antibiotic prescriptions per 1000 patients, in the overall population and a subset of encounters with infectious diagnoses, including respiratory tract infections (RTIs). Interrupted time series (ITS) analysis was performed.ResultsThere were 60,562 total antibiotic prescriptions from April to December in 2019 and 14,605 antibiotic prescriptions during the same months in 2020, a 76% reduction. The reduction in RTI encounter prescriptions accounted for 91.5% of the overall reduction in prescriptions from 2019 to 2020. Using ITS analysis, there was an immediate decrease from 31.6 to 7.4 prescriptions/1000 patients (predicted means) in April 2020 (-24.2 prescriptions/1000 patients; 95% CI: -31.9, -16.4) (Figures 1 and 2). This was followed by a stable rate of antibiotic prescriptions that remained flat through December 2020. For RTI encounters, a similar pattern was seen, with a decrease by 21.8 prescriptions/1000 patients; 95% CI: -29.5, -14.2) (Figures 1 and 2). Encounter volume also decreased immediately, and while overall encounter volume began returning to a pre-pandemic baseline volume toward the end of the study period, RTI encounter volume remained persistently lower through December 2020 (Figure 3).Figure 1. Antibiotic prescriptions per 1000 patients prescribed by month from January 2018 to December 2020, overall and for disease-specific subgroups RTI = respiratory tract infection; UTI = urinary tract infection; SSTI = skin and soft tissue infection. Months are numbered sequentially, starting with January (number 1). Dashed line indicates first full month of the pandemic, April 2020.Interrupted time series analysis for antibiotic prescriptions per 1000 patients by month from January 2018 to December 2020 for (A) all antibiotics as well as antibiotics prescribed at encounters with (B) respiratory tract infections (RTIs), (C) urinary tract infections (UTIs), and (D) skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) Intervention starts in April 2020 (dashed line). Months are numbered sequentially, starting with January (number 1). Dashed line indicates first full month of the pandemic, April 2020.Antibiotic prescriptions per 1000 billed encounters by month from January 2018 to December 2020 for (A) all encounters, as well as antibiotics prescribed at encounters with (B) respiratory tract infections (RTIs), (C) urinary tract infections (UTIs), and (D) skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) Months are numbered sequentially, starting with January (number 1).ConclusionDramatic reductions in antibiotic prescribing in pediatric primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic were sustained through 2020, primarily driven by reductions in RTI encounters.Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

858. Impact of Using an Order Set on PrEP Prescribing and Laboratory Monitoring in Primary Care

BackgroundCDC 2017 pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) guideline recommends laboratory monitoring at baseline and follow-up and specifies that a PrEP prescription should be written for once daily dosing with a supply of 90 days or less to ensure patients repeat HIV testing every 3 months. This presents an opportunity to utilize order sets in the electronic health record to improve PrEP prescribing habits and prescriber adherence to laboratory monitoring recommendations. This study assessed the impact of using an order set on the accuracy of PrEP prescriptions and the appropriateness of laboratory monitoring in the primary care setting.MethodsThis was a retrospective, single-center, observational cohort study conducted at primary care clinics at a large academic health system. A total of 228 PrEP prescriptions from adults at least 18 years of age and that were written between April 1, 2018 through May 31, 2020 were assigned to the two comparator groups: 176 prescriptions ordered without an order set and 52 prescriptions ordered with an order set. The primary outcome was a composite of correct prescription details, defined as once daily dosing of PrEP for a 90-day supply or less. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of having an HIV antigen/antibody (Ag/Ab) test ordered within 3 months of the PrEP prescription, and the composite of appropriate baseline labs ordered for those newly starting PrEP.ResultsBaseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. The primary outcome of correct prescription details occurred in 100% of PrEP prescriptions ordered with an order set compared to 65.9% of those ordered without an order set (P< 0.001). At least 1 HIV Ag/Ab test was appropriately repeated within 3 months for 65.4% of PrEP prescriptions ordered with an order set and 42.6% ordered without an order set (P=0.004). In those initiating PrEP, a composite of correct baseline labs ordered occurred with 14 (73.7%) new start prescriptions ordered with an order set versus 47 (42.7%) ordered without an order set (P=0.023). ConclusionWhen ordering PrEP, order set use significantly improved the accuracy of PrEP prescriptions and appropriateness of laboratory monitoring at baseline and at follow-up compared to no order set use at primary care clinics of a large academic health system.Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

94. Implementation of Antibiotic Prescribing Scorecards in the Ambulatory Care Setting

BackgroundUp to 56% of antibiotics prescribed in the ambulatory setting in the United States are inappropriately prescribed, with 30% of those determined to be unnecessary. In order to increase transparency and education about antibiotic prescribing in our ambulatory clinics at our institution, we implemented quarterly scorecards demonstrating antibiotic prescribing trends for primary care prescribers. MethodsThis pre-post interventional study analyzed the impact of prescriber scorecards on antibiotic prescribing, with the intervention consisting of real-time education and presentation of baseline data via scorecards. Prescribers were educated on the scorecard project via live meetings in Nov-Dec 2020. In Dec 2020, prescribers were sent individual emails describing their baseline antibiotic prescription rate (defined as number of prescriptions per 100 patient encounters), de-identified comparison data for other prescribers within their individual clinic, and average rate of the top 10% of prescribers with the lowest prescription rates. Baseline data was from prescriptions dated Jan-Mar 2020. The email also explained the project and shared that quarterly scorecards would be distributed in 2021. Baseline data was compared to prescription data from Jan-Mar 2021. Knowing the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in significantly fewer encounters for respiratory infections, data was also analyzed with respiratory diagnoses removed from the dataset. ResultsIn the pre-intervention period, 11,769 antibiotics were prescribed during 92,239 encounters for a prescription rate of 12.8 (95%CI: 12.5-13.0). Of 96,449 encounters in the post-intervention period, 7,326 antibiotics were prescribed for a rate of 7.6 (95%CI: 7.4-7.8; p< 0.0001). When respiratory diagnoses were removed, prescription rates were 6.1 (95%CI: 5.9-6.2) in the pre-group, compared to 6.3 (95%CI: 6.1-6.5; p=0.0546). When analyzed by prescriber, significant decreases were seen in prescriptions by physicians (5.8 vs 5.4, p=0.0035) while increases were seen in prescriptions by advanced practice prescribers. ConclusionAntibiotic scorecards sent to prescribers may result in reduced antibiotic prescribing, but further research is needed to elucidate the impact of the scorecards in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures