Cargando…

2073. Apples and Oranges: Comparing Toolkits to Track Antimicrobial Prescribing in Ambulatory Care Settings

BACKGROUND: Between 15–50% of patients seen in ambulatory settings are prescribed an antibiotic. At least one-third of this usage is considered unnecessary. Multiple tools have emerged to evaluate antibiotic prescribing in ambulatory settings. The toolkits, MITIGATE and Choosing Wisely, have been fu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kassamali, Zahra, Bryson-Cahn, Chloe, Bouchard, Todd, Min Lee, Kyung, G. Lansang, Jose Mari, Thomassen, Scott, Lynch, John B, May, Larissa, Kvak, Staci, D’Angeli, Marisa A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6809970/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.1753
_version_ 1783462131166871552
author Kassamali, Zahra
Bryson-Cahn, Chloe
Bouchard, Todd
Min Lee, Kyung
G. Lansang, Jose Mari
Thomassen, Scott
Lynch, John B
Lynch, John B
May, Larissa
Kvak, Staci
D’Angeli, Marisa A
author_facet Kassamali, Zahra
Bryson-Cahn, Chloe
Bouchard, Todd
Min Lee, Kyung
G. Lansang, Jose Mari
Thomassen, Scott
Lynch, John B
Lynch, John B
May, Larissa
Kvak, Staci
D’Angeli, Marisa A
author_sort Kassamali, Zahra
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Between 15–50% of patients seen in ambulatory settings are prescribed an antibiotic. At least one-third of this usage is considered unnecessary. Multiple tools have emerged to evaluate antibiotic prescribing in ambulatory settings. The toolkits, MITIGATE and Choosing Wisely, have been funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and promoted by the American Board of Internal Medicine, respectively, but use different reporting criteria. Notably, the target rate of antibiotic prescribing in the MITIGATE framework is zero, whereas the target rate for Choosing Wisely is not zero because it includes diagnoses for which an antibiotic may be appropriate. We compared both to evaluate prescribing in primary care and specialty clinics, urgent care, and the emergency department. METHODS: This was a single-center observational study. Electronic medical record data were accessed to determine antibiotic prescribing and diagnosis codes. The primary outcome was rate of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing overall and in each of the individual settings. RESULTS: Between March 2018 and April 2019, 42,650 patient visits met MITIGATE inclusion criteria and 11% received an antibiotic unnecessarily. In the same time-period, 23,366 patient visits met Choosing Wisely inclusion criteria and 17% received an antibiotic unnecessarily. Within the MITIGATE framework, inappropriate prescribing was highest in the ED (17%), followed by primary care (12%), urgent care (10%), and specialty care (5%). Choosing Wisely, inappropriate prescribing was highest in primary care (23%), followed by urgent care (15%), and specialty care (8%). The ED was not included in the Choosing Wisely technical specifications. The top coded diagnosis in both frameworks was acute respiratory infection, unspecified. CONCLUSION: Rates of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing varied widely depending upon the toolkit used. Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in primary care by Choosing Wisely framework was double that of MITIGATE. Careful consideration of the differences and goals of using these toolkits is needed both on the local level for individual provider feedback and more broadly, when comparing prescribing rates between institutions. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6809970
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68099702019-10-28 2073. Apples and Oranges: Comparing Toolkits to Track Antimicrobial Prescribing in Ambulatory Care Settings Kassamali, Zahra Bryson-Cahn, Chloe Bouchard, Todd Min Lee, Kyung G. Lansang, Jose Mari Thomassen, Scott Lynch, John B Lynch, John B May, Larissa Kvak, Staci D’Angeli, Marisa A Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: Between 15–50% of patients seen in ambulatory settings are prescribed an antibiotic. At least one-third of this usage is considered unnecessary. Multiple tools have emerged to evaluate antibiotic prescribing in ambulatory settings. The toolkits, MITIGATE and Choosing Wisely, have been funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and promoted by the American Board of Internal Medicine, respectively, but use different reporting criteria. Notably, the target rate of antibiotic prescribing in the MITIGATE framework is zero, whereas the target rate for Choosing Wisely is not zero because it includes diagnoses for which an antibiotic may be appropriate. We compared both to evaluate prescribing in primary care and specialty clinics, urgent care, and the emergency department. METHODS: This was a single-center observational study. Electronic medical record data were accessed to determine antibiotic prescribing and diagnosis codes. The primary outcome was rate of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing overall and in each of the individual settings. RESULTS: Between March 2018 and April 2019, 42,650 patient visits met MITIGATE inclusion criteria and 11% received an antibiotic unnecessarily. In the same time-period, 23,366 patient visits met Choosing Wisely inclusion criteria and 17% received an antibiotic unnecessarily. Within the MITIGATE framework, inappropriate prescribing was highest in the ED (17%), followed by primary care (12%), urgent care (10%), and specialty care (5%). Choosing Wisely, inappropriate prescribing was highest in primary care (23%), followed by urgent care (15%), and specialty care (8%). The ED was not included in the Choosing Wisely technical specifications. The top coded diagnosis in both frameworks was acute respiratory infection, unspecified. CONCLUSION: Rates of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing varied widely depending upon the toolkit used. Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in primary care by Choosing Wisely framework was double that of MITIGATE. Careful consideration of the differences and goals of using these toolkits is needed both on the local level for individual provider feedback and more broadly, when comparing prescribing rates between institutions. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. Oxford University Press 2019-10-23 /pmc/articles/PMC6809970/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.1753 Text en © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Abstracts
Kassamali, Zahra
Bryson-Cahn, Chloe
Bouchard, Todd
Min Lee, Kyung
G. Lansang, Jose Mari
Thomassen, Scott
Lynch, John B
Lynch, John B
May, Larissa
Kvak, Staci
D’Angeli, Marisa A
2073. Apples and Oranges: Comparing Toolkits to Track Antimicrobial Prescribing in Ambulatory Care Settings
title 2073. Apples and Oranges: Comparing Toolkits to Track Antimicrobial Prescribing in Ambulatory Care Settings
title_full 2073. Apples and Oranges: Comparing Toolkits to Track Antimicrobial Prescribing in Ambulatory Care Settings
title_fullStr 2073. Apples and Oranges: Comparing Toolkits to Track Antimicrobial Prescribing in Ambulatory Care Settings
title_full_unstemmed 2073. Apples and Oranges: Comparing Toolkits to Track Antimicrobial Prescribing in Ambulatory Care Settings
title_short 2073. Apples and Oranges: Comparing Toolkits to Track Antimicrobial Prescribing in Ambulatory Care Settings
title_sort 2073. apples and oranges: comparing toolkits to track antimicrobial prescribing in ambulatory care settings
topic Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6809970/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.1753
work_keys_str_mv AT kassamalizahra 2073applesandorangescomparingtoolkitstotrackantimicrobialprescribinginambulatorycaresettings
AT brysoncahnchloe 2073applesandorangescomparingtoolkitstotrackantimicrobialprescribinginambulatorycaresettings
AT bouchardtodd 2073applesandorangescomparingtoolkitstotrackantimicrobialprescribinginambulatorycaresettings
AT minleekyung 2073applesandorangescomparingtoolkitstotrackantimicrobialprescribinginambulatorycaresettings
AT glansangjosemari 2073applesandorangescomparingtoolkitstotrackantimicrobialprescribinginambulatorycaresettings
AT thomassenscott 2073applesandorangescomparingtoolkitstotrackantimicrobialprescribinginambulatorycaresettings
AT lynchjohnb 2073applesandorangescomparingtoolkitstotrackantimicrobialprescribinginambulatorycaresettings
AT lynchjohnb 2073applesandorangescomparingtoolkitstotrackantimicrobialprescribinginambulatorycaresettings
AT maylarissa 2073applesandorangescomparingtoolkitstotrackantimicrobialprescribinginambulatorycaresettings
AT kvakstaci 2073applesandorangescomparingtoolkitstotrackantimicrobialprescribinginambulatorycaresettings
AT dangelimarisaa 2073applesandorangescomparingtoolkitstotrackantimicrobialprescribinginambulatorycaresettings