Rates Of Inappropriate Prescribing Research Articles

Appropriate Prescribing of Antipsychotic Medication Amongst Long-Term Care Facility Residents Admitted to Hospital

Abstract Background In Ireland, it is estimated that up to 45% of long-term care facility residents (LTCR) living with dementia are prescribed antipsychotic medication1. Although antipsychotics have moderate benefit in treating neuropsychiatric symptoms, their use must be carefully weighed against an adverse side effect profile. This study aims to describe the prevalence of antipsychotic usage in LTCR admitted to hospital, and to determine the appropriateness of the prescription as outlined by the National Clinical Guideline 21. This study describes the efficacy of a new Nursing Home Liaison (NHL) service (consisting of two advanced practice nurses) in reducing inappropriate prescribing. Methods Hospital admissions were screened daily to identify LTCR. Medical chart and drug kardex review was performed to collect demographic data, dementia diagnosis, and antipsychotic prescription. Anticholinergic burden was calculated using the ACB score. If the indication for antipsychotic was not clear post review, the NHL service obtained collateral history to determine reason for prescription, making recommendations to wean and stop the medication where appropriate. Results Data was prospectively collected on 50 consecutive LTCR, 28 (57%) were male and the average age was 81years. 26 (51%) of patients had a diagnosis of dementia. A total of 11 (22%) patients were prescribed antipsychotics; of these, seven (64%) had dementia and the rest had psychiatric diagnoses. The mean anticholinergic burden was 2.4 (range 0-7). Five (45%) of the antipsychotic prescriptions were not justified as per Guideline 21 or were no longer needed. These were amended as per the advice of the NHL service. Conclusion This study highlights rates of inappropriate prescribing of antipsychotics among LTCR, resulting in high anticholinergic burden and the associated risks. Medication review and advice from a specialist NHL service, was effective in reducing inappropriate prescriptions. Further education and dissemination of Guideline 21 is prudent to ensure proper prescribing and de-prescribing practices.

Appropriateness of Antibiotic Prescriptions in Emergency Departments in the United States, 2016-2021

Background: Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing contributes to antimicrobial resistance, a global health threat. Prior studies have used ICD-9-CM codes to estimate inappropriate prescribing rates in ambulatory settings, including emergency departments (EDs), though the last national estimates date back to 2010-2015 (Hersh et al, CID 2021). Using the most recent publicly available data, we estimated inappropriate antibiotic prescribing rates in EDs across all conditions. For further characterization, we estimated rates of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing with and without codes that could be plausible indications for which antibiotics are prescribed. Methods: We analyzed 2016-2021 data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, a nationally representative survey of EDs, subsetting to visits with ≥1 oral antibiotic prescription. Using ICD-10-CM codes (Chua et al, BMJ 2019), we calculated proportions of visits with inappropriate antibiotic prescribing; inappropriate antibiotic prescribing and ≥1 plausible antibiotic-inappropriate indication (e.g., viral infection); and inappropriate prescribing without plausible antibiotic-inappropriate indications. Among visits with plausible antibiotic-inappropriate indications, we subcategorized these further (e.g. viral infection, ophthalmologic conditions). Among visits without plausible antibiotic-inappropriate indications, we determined the most common diagnosis codes. We conducted analyses overall and separately among children (0-17 years), adults (18-64 years), and older adults (≥65 years). Results: Demographic characteristics by age group are shown in Table 1. Antibiotic prescription rates overall and for children, adults, and older adults were 18.6%, 17.8%, 19.1%, and 18.0%, respectively. Inappropriate prescription rates were 27.6%, 23.7%, 29.8%, and 24.6%, respectively. Inappropriate antibiotic prescription rates with plausible indications were 14.9%, 16.7%, 15.0%, and 12.6%, while inappropriate antibiotic prescription rates without plausible indications were 12.7%, 7.0%, 14.9%, and 12.0%, respectively (Figure 1). Rates of subcategories of inappropriate prescribing with plausible antibiotic indications overall and by age group are shown in Figure 2, with the most common diagnoses for potential signs and symptoms of infection in Table 2. The most common diagnoses for inappropriate prescribing without plausible indications are in Table 3. Conclusions: Inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions in EDs are common with a substantial proportion without plausible conditions. Most inappropriate prescriptions with plausible antibiotic-inappropriate indications are associated with potential signs and symptoms of infection without a more definitive diagnosis code, suggesting either diagnostic uncertainty or poor coding quality. Future work should distinguish between these two possibilities to determine whether stewardship efforts should focus on educational strategies to avoid unnecessary empiric antibiotic prescribing in the setting of diagnostic uncertainty, improving coding quality, or both.

EXPRESS: Influencing Primary Care Antibiotic Prescription Behavior Using Financial Incentives

Antibiotic resistance is an ongoing public health crisis fueled by overuse and misuse of antibiotics. The goal of this paper is to examine the impact of action-based incentive payments on reducing inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions in primary care, where thirty to fifty percent of antibiotic prescriptions are inappropriate. Various financial incentive programs to reduce the rate of inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions have been implemented and studied empirically. However, there have not been analytical studies to evaluate payment model contract design features and the potential for payment models to impact diagnosis decision making. We develop a stylized physician compensation model to study the interaction between a payer and a provider. The payer offers a payment contract, with a bonus tied to the prescription, to maximize social welfare, considering total costs of providing care and social harm from antibiotic resistance. Given the contract offered and their own opportunity cost associated with factors such as fear of misdiagnosis and time spent explaining to patients why antibiotics are not indicated, the provider chooses whether or not to prescribe antibiotics to patients for whom antibiotics are not clinically indicated. We consider four cases: when diagnostic accuracy relies on symptom presentation vs. additional diagnostic testing and when the opportunity cost of not prescribing antibiotics is public vs. private information of the provider. When there is no information asymmetry, an action-based incentive payment can coordinate care and achieve the first-best policy, decreasing the rate of inappropriate prescribing, even when incentive payments can affect the diagnosis behavior. However, when the diagnosis depends on additional testing, the first-best policy results in fewer inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions, when the test has high specificity. Therefore, when an accurate technical diagnostic is available, a simple to implement action-based incentive payment can be effective in reducing inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. In the realistic setting where the provider’s opportunity cost is private information, an action-based incentive payment cannot eliminate inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. In these settings, the introduction of point of care diagnostics to aid in objective diagnostic criteria will reduce the unintended consequences of the contract.

Knowledge and Perceptions of Final-Year Nursing Students Regarding Antimicrobials, Antimicrobial Resistance, and Antimicrobial Stewardship in South Africa: Findings and Implications to Reduce Resistance.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is being increasingly seen as the next pandemic due to high morbidity and mortality rates, with Sub-Saharan Africa currently having the highest mortality rates driven by high rates of inappropriate prescribing in ambulatory care. In South Africa, nurses typically provide a range of services, including prescribing, in public ambulatory care clinics. However, little is currently known about the perception of final-year nursing students regarding antibiotic use, AMR, and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS). Consequently, we sought to address this important evidence gap. A quantitative descriptive study using a self-administered online questionnaire via Google Forms® was undertaken among six universities in South Africa offering a Baccalaureus of Nursing. Knowledge on the classes of antibiotics, organisms covered, and mechanism of action was lacking. The sample size to achieve a confidence interval of 95% with a 5% error margin was 174, increased to 200 to compensate for possible attrition. Only 15.3% of nurses knew that ceftazidime is not a fourth-generation cephalosporin, and only 16.1% knew that clavulanic acid does not decrease inflammation at the site of infection. In addition, only 58.9% and 67.7% agreed that the prescribing of broad-spectrum antibiotics and poor infection control, respectively, increase AMR. AMS was also not a well-known concept among final-year nurses. The lack of knowledge regarding antibiotics, AMR, and AMS among final-year nurses could have important repercussions in practice once these nurses are qualified. Consequently, this information gap needs to be urgently addressed going forward with updated curricula and post-qualification educational activities to reduce AMR in South Africa.

Inappropriate Prescribing to Older Patients by Nurse Practitioners and Primary Care Physicians.

Many U.S. states have legislated to allow nurse practitioners (NPs) to independently prescribe drugs. Critics contend that these moves will adversely affect quality of care. To compare rates of inappropriate prescribing among NPs and primary care physicians. Rates of inappropriate prescribing were calculated and compared for 23 669 NPs and 50 060 primary care physicians who wrote prescriptions for 100 or more patients per year, with adjustment for practice experience, patient volume and risk, clinical setting, year, and state. 29 states that had granted NPs prescriptive authority by 2019. Medicare Part D beneficiaries aged 65 years or older in 2013 to 2019. Inappropriate prescriptions, defined as drugs that typically should not be prescribed for adults aged 65 years or older, according to the American Geriatrics Society's Beers Criteria. Mean rates of inappropriate prescribing by NPs and primary care physicians were virtually identical (adjusted odds ratio, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.97 to 1.01]; crude rates, 1.63 vs. 1.69 per 100 prescriptions; adjusted rates, 1.66 vs. 1.68). However, NPs were overrepresented among clinicians with the highest and lowest rates of inappropriate prescribing. For both types of practitioners, discrepancies in inappropriate prescribing rates across states tended to be larger than discrepancies between these practitioners within states. The Beers Criteria addresses the appropriateness of a selected subset of drugs and may not be valid in some clinical settings. Nurse practitioners were no more likely than physicians to prescribe inappropriately to older patients. Broad efforts to improve the performance of all clinicians who prescribe may be more effective than limiting independent prescriptive authority to physicians. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and National Science Foundation.

Transdermal Rotigotine at End-of-Life for Parkinson's Disease: Association With Measures of Distress

BackgroundEnd-of-life (EOL) care for Parkinson's disease (PD) can be challenging when oral medications are no longer tolerated. MeasuresTo assess EOL prescribing for people with PD (PWP), focusing on rotigotine dosing and proxy measures of distress: benzodiazepine and opioid use. InterventionA retrospective audit of patient records from PWP who died between January 2019 and May 2022 at the Royal Hobart Hospital (RHH), Australia, was conducted. Data was systematically collated on demographics, symptoms, levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and rotigotine, oral morphine equivalent (OME) and benzodiazepine doses in the last 72 hours of life . OutcomesPain (72%), respiratory secretions (66%) and agitation (66%) were the most documented EOL symptoms. 83% (n = 52) of PWP were eligible for rotigotine and, of those, 13% (n = 7) received the correct dose, 38% (n = 20) a lower dose, 12% (n = 6) a higher dose and 37% (n = 19) did not receive any. Rotigotine dose was positively associated with total (P = 0.016) and PRN (P = 0.037) benzodiazepine dose. LEDD was positively associated with total benzodiazepine (P = 0.018) and total OME dose (P = 0.046). Contraindicated dopamine antagonists were prescribed for 43% of PWP and administered in 31% of those cases. ConclusionsRotigotine dose and admission LEDD were both associated with proxy measures of distress in the last 72 hours of life. This suggests cautious use of rotigotine at EOL. LEDD may help identify patients at risk of distress. Rates of inappropriate prescribing and symptom prevalence were high, indicating a need for further staff education to optimize the care of PWP.

Multi-faceted approach to decreasing inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for viral upper respiratory tract infections

Background: Prescribing of antibiotics for viral upper respiratory infection (URI) remains a pressing public health problem. We sought to reduce inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics for viral URIs at primary-care practices at Mayo Clinic Arizona (MCA). Methods: Diagnostic codes for URIs commonly caused by viruses were categorized as tier 3 (ie, never prescribe). The inappropriate prescribing rate was defined as the number of tier 3 encounters resulting in a prescription for a URI antibiotic divided by the total number of tier 3 encounters. MCA primary-care departments, including family medicine, community internal medicine, emergency medicine, and women’s health internal medicine, were included in the intervention. Each department was briefed on the project, including baseline department prescribing data, and was provided education. Education topics included appropriate indications for antibiotics, patient-centered strategies for reducing antibiotic use, and a review of electronic resources developed specifically for the project. Resources included a syndromic ambulatory order panel (EZ ID Respiratory Order Panel) and a viral prescription pad, which contains simplified over-the-counter recommendations for symptomatic management of viral URIs and patient education. Quarterly peer comparison reports were provided to the department chairs and/or site leads. Our goal was to reduce inappropriate prescribing by 22% in 2022. An Epic dashboard (SlicerDicer model) was developed to track data on an ongoing basis. We used χ2 tests to compare categorical variables. Results: Department education was completed by June 2022 (Fig. 1). The annual antibiotic prescribing rate for tier 3 encounters decreased by 29% from a baseline rate 23.6% in 2021 to 16.4% in 2022 (P < .001). The posteducation prescribing rate (June 2022–December 2022) was 13.1%. Utilization of the EZ ID ambulatory order panel increased from an average of 1.5 uses per month in 2021 to 13.3 uses per month in 2022 (Fig. 2). Repeated healthcare contact for URIs within 14 days of tier 3 encounters did not differ among patients prescribed and not prescribed an antibiotic in all of 2022 (3.8% vs 3.9%; P = .91) or during the posteducation period (1.8% vs 4.2%; P = .14). There was no appreciable diagnostic shift over the course of 2022 (Fig. 3). Conclusions: A multifaceted intervention, which included baseline education, promotion of syndrome-specific order panels, dissemination of resources for symptomatic management, and distribution of peer comparison reports, resulted in significant reduction of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for URIs.Disclosure: None

Barriers to Optimal Surgical Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus-Colonized Patients at an Australian Tertiary Teaching Hospital

Background: Surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis (SAP) is a leading indication for antibiotic use in Australian hospitals with established high rates of inappropriate prescribing. Optimal administration of SAP for patients at high risk of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections presents additional complexities. A greater understanding of barriers to optimal SAP in this cohort is required to inform targeted antimicrobial stewardship strategies, optimize SAP, and reduce the rate of surgical site infections (SSIs). Methods: A multiple-choice questionnaire appraising knowledge and barriers to optimal SAP was electronically distributed to key stakeholders. Data from the questionnaire were collated and analyzed using Survey Monkey® (Momentive Inc., San Mateo, CA) data analysis tools. Results: Eighty-three persons provided full or partial responses to the questionnaire. There were 19% of respondents who considered MRSA colonization status of patients to be only "somewhat important" when selecting appropriate SAP. Additionally, 62% of responses did not correctly identify the appropriate SAP regimen for patients who are colonized with MRSA. Several barriers to optimal SAP were identified including poor understanding of SAP guidelines, lack of timely identification of patients confirmed to be colonized with MRSA, inaccurate documentation of antibiotic and surgical start times, and limitations of the current operating room management software program. Conclusions: The high level of engagement from most key stakeholders demonstrates accountability and an overall desire to improve SAP. Barriers identified in this audit should be considered by facilities wishing to optimize compliance with SAP guidelines and consequently reduce SSIs, in particular for patients who are at high risk of MRSA infections.

Implementation of an antimicrobial stewardship program in the Australian private hospital system: qualitative study of attitudes to antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial stewardship

BackgroundAntimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) is a key method to tackle antimicrobial resistance (AMR). In Australia, private hospitals have a higher rate of inappropriate prescribing and non-compliance with antimicrobial guidelines, yet this phenomenon is poorly described. Private hospitals make up 49% of hospitals in Australia, making it vital to understand AMS in this setting.MethodsThis study aimed to explore capabilities, opportunities and motivations for AMR and AMS with stakeholders at an Australian private hospital, and identify barriers and enablers 5 years post-implementation of an AMS program comparing with pre-implementation findings. A mixed-methods study was performed, involving three focus groups with stakeholders. All doctors, nurses and pharmacists at the hospital were invited to complete a survey on their experiences with and awareness of AMR, AMS and antimicrobial prescribing.ResultsThirteen staff took part in the focus groups, 100 staff responded to the survey. Staff understood the importance of the AMS program, but active engagement was low. Staff felt more thorough feedback and monitoring could improve prescribing behaviour, but acknowledged difficulty in private hospitals in changing habits of staff who valued autonomy in making prescribing decisions. Half of respondents felt the current AMS restrictions should continue. Executive engagement may be needed to drive system changes across a complex network.ConclusionAMS awareness increased post-implementation, but staff remained sceptical of its benefits. Engagement and education of medical consultants regarding local benefits of AMS must improve. Enhanced understanding of feedback provision, methods for engagement, and advocacy from leadership will ensure success and longevity for the program.

1751. Evaluation of Antimicrobial Stewardship Interventions in Primary Care Clinics

Abstract Background The goal of antimicrobial stewardship is to optimize antimicrobial therapy and clinical outcomes while minimizing the unintended consequences of antimicrobial use. With the majority of antibiotics prescribed in the outpatient setting, optimizing antimicrobial prescribing across the care continuum is necessary. We aimed to evaluate the effect of antimicrobial stewardship interventions on the rate of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in three adult primary care clinics affiliated with a tertiary care hospital. Methods Antibiotic prescriptions were identified by filtering common antibiotics prescribed prior to and post intervention. Prescriptions were excluded if they were prescribed pre-procedure or if the patient had a recent hospitalization within 30 days of the outpatient visit. Appropriateness of antibiotics was determined by indication, agent, dose and duration. Institutional guidelines were created for most common infections treated in the pre-intervention period. Education to outpatient providers was completed in two in-person visits. Results A total of 258 prescriptions were reviewed between the pre- and post-intervention periods. The majority of patients were female (73-76%) and the median age was similar between both cohorts. The most common infection treated during the pre-intervention period was urinary tract infection, whereas skin and soft tissue infection was most common in the post-intervention period. During the baseline period, the inappropriate prescribing rate was 61%. After intervention, the rate was reduced to 55%. Conclusion The use of outpatient antimicrobial stewardship guidelines and provider education to reinforce knowledge demonstrated reductions in inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures.

Evaluation and Implementation of KIDs List Recommendations in a University Health System.

The study aims to identify the rate of inappropriate prescribing per the Key Potentially Inappropriate Drugs in Pediatrics (KIDs) List versus total prescribing in patients at University of Missouri Health Care hospitals. This retrospective study evaluated orders for patients treated at University of Missouri Health Care inpatient units or emergency departments with a KIDs List medication between September 1, 2019, and September 1, 2020, or a reported adverse event to one of these medications between September 1, 2015, and September 1, 2020. Patients were excluded if the patient safety report was related to a medication error rather than an adverse event. Safety measures assessed included age and weight filtering, dose-range checking, clinical decision support, and override availability. There were 39 inappropriate orders and 4 possible adverse events identified. A total of 8 of 33 medications (24%) had age and weight filtering in place for at least 1 order sentence, 1 of 38 (2.6%) had dose-range checking, no medications had an active clinical decision support alert, and 33 of 38 (87%) had availability on automated dispensing cabinet override. Use of KIDs List medications is appropriately low, but low levels of safety measure implementation leave pediatric patients vulnerable.

Clinical Utility of Medication-Based Risk Scores to Reduce Polypharmacy and Potentially Avoidable Healthcare Utilization.

The management of multiple chronic health conditions often requires patients to be exposed to polypharmacy to improve their health and enhance their quality of life. However, exposure to polypharmacy has been associated with an increased risk for adverse effects, drug-drug interactions, inappropriate prescribing, medication nonadherence, increased healthcare utilization such as emergency department visits and hospitalizations, and costs. Medication-based risk scores have been utilized to identify patients who may benefit from deprescribing interventions and reduce rates of inappropriate prescribing. These risk scores may also be utilized to prompt targeted discussions between patients and providers regarding medications or medication classes contributing to an individual’s risk for harm, eventually leading to the deprescribing of the offending medication(s). This opinion will describe existing medication-based risk scores in the literature, their utility in identifying patients at risk for specific adverse events, and how they may be incorporated in healthcare settings to reduce rates of potentially inappropriate polypharmacy and avoidable healthcare utilization and costs.

Ophthalmic Antimicrobial Prescribing in Australian Healthcare Facilities.

The National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey (NAPS) is a web-based, standardized tool, widely adopted in Australian healthcare facilities to assess the reasons for, the quantity of, and the quality of antimicrobial prescribing. It consists of multiple modules tailored towards the needs of a variety of healthcare facilities. Data regarding ophthalmological antimicrobial use from Hospital NAPS, Surgical NAPS, and Aged Care NAPS were analysed. In Hospital NAPS, the most common reasons for inappropriate prescribing were incorrect dose or frequency and incorrect duration. Prolonged duration was also common in Aged Care prescribing: about one quarter of all antimicrobials had been prescribed for greater than 6 months. All three modules found chloramphenicol to be the most prescribed antimicrobial with a high rate of inappropriate prescribing, usually for conjunctivitis.

A multimodal intervention to decrease inappropriate outpatient antibiotic prescribing for upper respiratory tract infections in a large integrated healthcare system.

To evaluate the effectiveness of Carolinas Healthcare Outpatient Antimicrobial Stewardship Empowerment Network (CHOSEN), a multicomponent outpatient stewardship program to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for upper respiratory infections by 20% over 2 years. Before-and-after interrupted time series of antibiotics prescribed between 2 periods: April 2016-October 2017 and May 2018-March 2020. The study included 162 primary-care practices within a large healthcare system in the greater Charlotte, North Carolina region. Adult and pediatric patients with encounters for upper respiratory infections for which an antibiotic is inappropriate. Patient and provider educational materials, along with a web-based provider prescribing dashboard aimed at reducing inappropriate antibiotic prescribing were developed and distributed. Monthly antibiotic prescribing rates were calculated as the number of eligible encounters with an antibiotic prescribed divided by the total number of eligible encounters. A segmented regression analysis compared monthly antibiotic prescribing rates before versus after CHOSEN implementation, while also accounting for practice type and seasonal trends in prescribing. Overall, 286,580 antibiotics were prescribed during 704,248 preintervention encounters and 277,177 during 832,200 intervention encounters. Significant reductions in inappropriate prescribing rates were observed in all outpatient specialties: family medicine (relative difference before and after the intervention, -20.4%), internal medicine (-19.5%), pediatric medicine (-17.2%), and urgent care (-16.6%). A robust multimodal intervention that combined a provider prescribing dashboard with a targeted education campaign demonstrated significant decreases in inappropriate outpatient antibiotic prescribing for upper respiratory tract infections in a large integrated ambulatory network.

1123. Appropriateness of Antibiotic Prescribing Through the COVID-19 Pandemic and Associated Telehealth Visits

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic and resulting mitigation strategies have impacted rates of outpatient infections and delivery of care to pediatric patients. Virtual healthcare was rapidly implemented but much is unknown about the quality of care provided in telehealth visits. We sought to describe changes in visits throughout the pandemic and evaluate the appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing.MethodsWe utilized EHR data from a large health care system that provides primary care via pediatric, family medicine, and urgent care clinics. We included outpatient visits from 1/1/19 - 4/30/21 for children < 20 years. The COVID-19 era was defined as after March 2020. Visits were labeled as virtual according to coded encounter or visit type variables. The appropriateness of antibiotic prescriptions was assigned using a previously published ICD-10 classification scheme that defines each prescription as appropriate, potentially appropriate, or inappropriate (Chua, et al. BMJ, 2019).ResultsThere were 805,130 outpatient visits during the study period. The mean rate of antibiotic prescriptions in the pre-pandemic period was 23% (range 17-26% per month) and 11% (range 9-15%) in the COVID-19 era. Mean rates of inappropriate prescribing were 17% (range 14-20% per month) and 20% (range 19-22%), respectively (Figure 1). Coded virtual visits during the COVID-19 era were uncommon (1-2%) with the exception of April and May 2020 (11% and 5%, respectively). During the COVID-19 era, approximately 9% of telehealth visits resulted in antibiotics, compared to 11% of in-person visits (Table 1). Virtual visits had lower rates of inappropriate and appropriate prescribing, but higher rates of potentially appropriate prescribing (Table 1). Visits and associated antibiotic prescribing in the pre-pandemic and COVID-19 era Appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing in the COVID-19 era, by visit type ConclusionRates and volume of antibiotic prescribing in outpatient pediatric visits have declined in the COVID-19 era, while rates of inappropriate prescribing have increased slightly. Our study suggests use of telehealth for pediatric visits was minimal and led to higher prescribing rates for “potentially appropriate” indications. This could be explained by a lack of clinical certainty in conditions such as otitis media and pharyngitis in virtual visits. Disclosures Bethany A. Wattles, PharmD, MHA, Merck (Grant/Research Support, Research Grant or Support) Yana Feygin, Master of Science, Merck (Grant/Research Support, Research Grant or Support) Michelle D. Stevenson, MD, MS, Merck (Grant/Research Support) Michael J. Smith, MD, M.S.C.E, Merck (Grant/Research Support)Pfizer (Grant/Research Support)

Impact of antibiotic allergy labels on patient outcomes in a tertiary paediatric hospital.

Antibiotic allergies are reported in 5-15% of children. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of common β-lactam antibiotic allergy labels (AALs) on hospital treatment, focusing on length of stay and appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing. This was a retrospective cohort study over 21 months at the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Australia. A subset of children with the most common β-lactam allergies, and who required admission for intravenous antibiotics over a 12-month period, was analysed for appropriateness of prescribing. Non-allergic patients were matched to evaluate associations between AALs and hospital treatment. There were 98 912 children admitted over the study period, of whom 938 (1%) had at least one AAL on first admission. Of all encounters, 5145 (2.5%) were for children with AALs. The most common AALs were to amoxicillin and amoxicillin-clavulanic acid combinations (40.8%), cefalexin (14.4%) and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (9.7%). For the subset, there were 66 admissions for children who required intravenous antibiotics. Documentation was adequate for 27% of AALs. Inappropriate prescribing occurred in almost half (47%). Hospital stay was longer for children with AALs (median 4.7days; IQR 2.3-9.2) compared to non-allergic controls (median 3.9days; IQR 1.9-6.8; P = .02). Children with AALs were more likely to receive restricted antibiotics (aOR 3.03; 95% CI, 1.45-6.30; P = .003). This is the first study to demonstrate high rates of inappropriate prescribing in children with AALs. Children with AALs were significantly more likely to receive restricted antibiotics and had a longer length of stay compared with non-allergic controls.

Integrating pharmacists into aged care facilities to improve the quality use of medicine (PiRACF Study): protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

BackgroundMedication management in residential aged care facilities is an ongoing concern. Numerous studies have reported high rates of inappropriate prescribing and medication use in aged care facilities, which contribute to residents’ adverse health outcomes. There is a need for new models of care that enhance inter-disciplinary collaboration between residential aged care facility staff and healthcare professionals, to improve medication management. Pilot research has demonstrated the feasibility and benefits of integrating a pharmacist into the aged care facility team to improve the quality use of medicines. This protocol describes the design and methods for a cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the outcomes and conduct economic evaluation of a service model where on-site pharmacists are integrated into residential aged care facility healthcare teams to improve medication management.MethodsIntervention aged care facilities will employ on-site pharmacists to work as part of their healthcare teams 2 to 2.5 days per week for 12 months. On-site pharmacists, in collaboration with facility nurses, prescribers, community pharmacists, residents and families will conduct medication management activities to improve the quality use of medicines. Aged care facilities in the control group will continue usual care. The target sample size is 1188 residents from a minimum of 13 aged care facilities. The primary outcome is the appropriateness of prescribing, measured by the proportion of residents who are prescribed at least one potentially inappropriate medicine according to the 2019 Beers Criteria. Secondary outcomes include hospital and emergency department presentations, fall rates, prevalence and dose of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines, Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Score, staff influenza vaccination rate, time spent on medication rounds, appropriateness of dose form modification and completeness of resident’s allergy and adverse drug reaction documentation. A cost-consequence and cost-effectiveness analysis will be embedded in the trial.DiscussionThe results of this study will provide information on clinical and economic outcomes of a model that integrates on-site pharmacists into Australian residential aged care facilities. The results will provide policymakers with recommendations relevant to further implementation of this model.Trial registrationACTRN12620000430932. Registered on 1 April 2020 with ANZCTR

Improving antimicrobial prescribing for upper respiratory infections in the emergency department: Implementation of peer comparison with behavioral feedback.

To reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) by employing peer comparison with behavioral feedback in the emergency department (ED). A controlled before-and-after study. The study was conducted in 5 adult EDs at teaching and community hospitals in a health system. Adults presenting to the ED with a respiratory condition diagnosis code. Hospitalized patients and those with a diagnosis code for a non-respiratory condition for which antibiotics are or may be warranted were excluded. After a baseline period from January 2016 to March 2018, 3 EDs implemented a feedback intervention with peer comparison between April 2018 and December 2019 for attending physicians. Also, 2 EDs in the health system served as controls. Using interrupted time series analysis, the inappropriate ARI prescribing rate was calculated as the proportion of antibiotic-inappropriate ARI encounters with a prescription. Prescribing rates were also evaluated for all ARIs. Attending physicians at intervention sites received biannual e-mails with their inappropriate prescribing rate and had access to a dashboard that was updated daily showing their performance relative to their peers. Among 28,544 ARI encounters, the inappropriate prescribing rate remained stable at the control EDs between the 2 periods (23.0% and 23.8%). At the intervention sites, the inappropriate prescribing rate decreased significantly from 22.0% to 15.2%. Between periods, the overall ARI prescribing rate was 38.1% and 40.6% in the control group and 35.9% and 30.6% in the intervention group. Behavioral feedback with peer comparison can be implemented effectively in the ED to reduce inappropriate prescribing for ARIs.

Utilizing Behavioral Science to Improve Antibiotic Prescribing in Rural Urgent Care Settings

Background: The rate of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) is 45% among urgent care centers across the United States. To contribute to the US National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, which aims to decrease rates of inappropriate prescribing, we implemented 2 behavioral nudges using the evidence-based MITIGATE tool kit from urgent-care settings, at 3 high-volume, rural, urgent-care centers. Methods: An interrupted time series (ITS) analysis was conducted comparing a preintervention phase during the 2017–2018 influenza season (October through March) to the intervention phase during the 2018–2019 influenza season. We compared the rate of inappropriate or non–guideline-concordant antibiotic prescribing for ARTIs across 3 urgent-care locations. The 2 intervention behavioral nudges were (1) staff and patient education and (2) peer comparison. Provider education included presentations at staff meetings and grand rounds, and patient education print materials were distributed to the 3 locations coupled with news media and social media. We utilized the CDC “Be Antibiotics Aware” campaign materials, with our hospital’s logo added, and posted them in patient rooms and waiting areas. For the peer comparison behavioral intervention, providers were sent individual feedback e-mails with their prescribing data during the intervention period and a blinded ranking e-mail in which they were ranked in comparison to their peers. In the blinded ranking email, providers were placed into categories of “low prescribers,” those with a ≤23% inappropriate antibiotic prescribing rate based on the US National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistance Bacteria 2020 goal, or “high prescribers,” those with a rate greater than the national average (45%) of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for ARTI. Results: Our results show that fewer inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions were written during the intervention period (58.8%) than during the preintervention period (73.0%), resulting in a 14.5% absolute decrease in rates of inappropriate prescribing among urgent-care locations over a 6-month period (Fig. 1). The largest percentage decline in rates was seen in the month of April (−35.8%) when compared to April of the previous year. The ITS analysis revealed that the rate of inappropriate prescribing was statistically significantly different during the preintervention period compared to the intervention period (95% CI, −4.59 to −0.59; P = .0142). Conclusions: Using interventions outlined in the MITIGATE tool kit, we were able to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for ARTI in 3 rural, urgent-care locations.Funding: NoneDisclosures: Larissa May repo, Speaking honoraria-Cepheid Research grants-Roche Consultant-BioRad Advisory Board-Qvella Consultant-Nabriva

From Little Things Big Things Grow: The Development of an Auditing Program to Assess the Quality of Antimicrobial Prescribing

Background: An important aspect of antimicrobial stewardship is the qualitative assessment of antimicrobial prescribing. Owing to lack of standardized tools and resources required to design, conduct and analyze qualitative audits, these assessments are rarely performed. Objective: We designed an audit tool that was appropriate for all Australian hospital types, suited to local user requirements and including an assessment of the appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing. Methods: In 2011, a pilot survey was conducted in 32 Australian hospitals to assess the usability and generalizability of a qualitative audit tool. The tool was revised to reflect the respondents’ feedback. A second study was performed in 2012 in 85 hospitals. In 2013, following further feedback and refinement, an online auditing tool, the Hospital National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey (NAPS), was developed. Early audits demonstrated that surgical prophylaxis had the highest rates of inappropriate prescribing. In 2016, the Surgical NAPS was developed to further investigate reasons for this, and the NAPS program was further expanded to audit antimicrobial prescribing practices in Australian aged-care homes (ie, the Aged Care NAPS). Results: Between January 1, 2013, and November 12, 2019, 523 Australian public and private hospitals (53.8%) utilized the Hospital NAPS; 215 (22.1%) have utilized the Surgical NAPS; and 774 of Australian aged-care homes (29.0%) have utilized the Aged Care NAPS. National reporting has identified key target areas for quality improvement initiatives at both local and national levels. The following initiatives have been outlined in 14 public reports: improved documentation; prolonged antimicrobial prophylaxis; compliance with prescribing guidelines; appropriateness of prescribing; access to evidence-based guidelines; and improved microbiology sampling. Conclusions: By utilizing the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle for healthcare improvement and by involving end users in the design and evaluation, we have created a practical and relevant auditing program to assess both quantitative and qualitative aspects of antimicrobial prescribing in a wide range of settings. This voluntary program is now endorsed by the National Strategy for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance, partners with the Antimicrobial Use and Resistance in Australian Surveillance System, and is utilized by facilities to meet mandatory national accreditation standard requirements. With the success of the NAPS program in Australia, it has now been implemented in New Zealand, Canada, Malaysia, Fiji, and Bhutan, with plans for other countries to implement the program soon. Current research is being conducted to expand the program to include audits for family physicians, veterinarians, and remote indigenous communities, and for antifungal use.Disclosures: NoneFunding: None