Antibiotic stewardship to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in integrated academic health-system urgent care clinics.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and implement antibiotic stewardship activities in urgent care targeting non-antibiotic-appropriate acute respiratory tract infections (ARIs) that also reduces overall antibiotic prescribing and maintains patient satisfaction. PATIENTS AND SETTING: Patients and clinicians at the urgent care clinics of an integrated academic health system. INTERVENTION AND METHODS: The stewardship activities started in fiscal 2020 and included measure development, comparative feedback, and clinician and patient education. We measured antibiotic prescribing in fiscal years 2019, 2020, and 2021 for the stewardship targets, potential diagnosis-shifting visits, and overall. We also collected patient satisfaction data for ARI visits. RESULTS: From FY19 to FY21, 576,609 patients made 1,358,816 visits to 17 urgent care clinics, including 105,781 visits for which stewardship measures were applied and 149,691 visits for which diagnosis shifting measures were applied. The antibiotic prescribing rate decreased for stewardship-measure visits from 34% in FY19 to 12% in FY21 (absolute change, -22%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -23% to -22%). The antibiotic prescribing rate decreased for diagnosis-shifting visits from 63% to 35% (-28%; 95% CI, -28% to -27%), and the antibiotic prescribing rate decreased overall from 30% to 10% (-20%; 95% CI, -20% to -20%). The patient satisfaction rate increased from 83% in FY19 to 89% in FY20 and FY21. There was no significant association between antibiotic prescribing rates of individual clinicians and ARI visit patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Although it was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, an ambulatory antimicrobial stewardship program that focused on improving non-antibiotic-appropriate ARI prescribing was associated with decreased prescribing for (1) the stewardship target, (2) a diagnosis shifting measure, and (3) overall antibiotic prescribing. Patient satisfaction at ARI visits increased over time and was not associated with clinicians' antibiotic prescribing rates.

Impact of COVID-19 on the capacity to self-manage health and chronic conditions.

Objective: To investigate well-being, lifestyle behaviors, self-management capacity and healthcare utilization among adults with chronic conditions at the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Data was collected from two interviewer-administered telephone surveys conducted between March 27 - May 22, 2020. Participants were patients at Chicago-area clinics. Self-report and validated measures were used for study-related outcomes. Results: A total of 553 participants (age range 23-88) completed data collection at both timepoints. One in five (20.7%) participants experienced stress due to the coronavirus most or all the time and rates of negative well-being were high (WHO-5 Index mean = 58.7%). Almost a quarter (22.3%) engaged in hazardous drinking and 79.7% reported insufficient physical activity. Nearly one in four participants (23.7%) avoided seeking medical care due to worry about COVID-19. In multivariable analyses, greater COVID-19 related stress was associated with less physical activity, lower self-efficacy, greater difficulty managing health and medications, and delays in seeking medical care due to the coronavirus. Conclusions: Mental well-being, lifestyle behaviors, self-management capacity, and healthcare utilization were impacted in the months following the COVID outbreak. Innovation: These findings suggest health systems should implement proactive measures for detecting and treating emotional and behavioral COVID-related concerns.

Trajectories of Sleep Disturbance and Self-Management of Chronic Conditions during COVID-19 among Middle-aged and Older Adults.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a widespread impact on sleep quality, yet little is known about the prevalence of sleep disturbance and its impact on self-management of chronic conditions during the ongoing pandemic. Objective: To evaluate trajectories of sleep disturbance, and their associations with one's capacity to self-manage chronic conditions. Design: A longitudinal cohort study linked to 3 active clinical trials and 2 cohort studies with 5 time points of sleep data collection (July 15, 2020 - May 23, 2022). Participants: Adults living with chronic conditions who completed sleep questionnaires for two or more time points. Exposure: Trajectories of self-reported sleep disturbance across 5 time points. Main Outcomes: 3 self-reported measures of self-management capacity, including subjective cognitive decline, medication adherence, and self-efficacy for managing chronic disease. Results: 549 adults aged 23 to 91 years were included in the analysis. Two thirds had 3 or more chronic conditions; 42.4% of participants followed a trajectory of moderate or high likelihood of persistent sleep disturbance across the study period. Moderate or high likelihood of sleep disturbance was associated with older age (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.09, 2.26, P <.05), persistent stress (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.16, 2.06, P =.003), poorer physical function (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.17, 2.13, P =.003), greater anxiety (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.04, 1.87, P =.03) and depression (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.20, 2.22, P =.002). Moderate or high likelihood of sleep disturbance was also independently associated with subjective cognitive decline, poorer medication adherence, and worse self-efficacy for managing chronic diseases (all P <.001). Conclusions: Persistent sleep disturbance during the pandemic may be an important risk factor for inadequate chronic disease self-management and potentially poor health outcomes in adults living with chronic conditions. Public health and health system strategies might consider monitoring sleep quality in adults with chronic conditions to optimize health outcomes.

Prevalence and risk factors of sleep disturbance in adults with underlying health conditions during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

To determine the prevalence of sleep disturbance during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic among US adults who are more vulnerable to complications because of age and co-morbid conditions, and to identify associated sociodemographic and psychosocial factors. Cross-sectional survey linked to 3 active clinical trials and 2 cohort studies, conducted between 11/30/2020 and 3/3/2021. Five academic internal medicine practices and 2 federally qualified health centers. A total of 715 adults ages 23 to 91 years living with one or more chronic conditions. A fifth (20%) of participants reported poor sleep. Black adults were twice as likely to report poor sleep compared to Whites. Self-reported poor physical function (51%), stress (42%), depression (28%), and anxiety (36%) were also common and all significantly associated with poor sleep. Age ≥70 years and having been vaccinated for COVID-19 were protective against poor sleep. Sex, education, income, alcohol use, and employment status were not significantly associated with sleep quality. In this diverse sample of adults with chronic conditions, by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, disparities in sleep health amid the ongoing pandemic were apparent. Worse physical function and mental health were associated with poor sleep and should be considered targets for health system interventions to prevent the many subsequent consequences of disturbed sleep on health outcomes. Measurements: self-reported sleep quality, physical function, stress, depression, and anxiety.

Prevalence and risk factors of sleep disturbance in adults with underlying health conditions during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic

To determine the prevalence of sleep disturbance during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic among US adults who are more vulnerable to complications because of age and co-morbid conditions, and to identify associated sociodemographic and psychosocial factors. Cross-sectional survey linked to 3 active clinical trials and 2 cohort studies, conducted between 11/30/2020 and 3/3/2021. Five academic internal medicine practices and 2 federally qualified health centers. A total of 715 adults ages 23 to 91 years living with one or more chronic conditions. A fifth (20%) of participants reported poor sleep. Black adults were twice as likely to report poor sleep compared to Whites. Self-reported poor physical function (51%), stress (42%), depression (28%), and anxiety (36%) were also common and all significantly associated with poor sleep. Age ≥70 years and having been vaccinated for COVID-19 were protective against poor sleep. Sex, education, income, alcohol use, and employment status were not significantly associated with sleep quality. In this diverse sample of adults with chronic conditions, by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, disparities in sleep health amid the ongoing pandemic were apparent. Worse physical function and mental health were associated with poor sleep and should be considered targets for health system interventions to prevent the many subsequent consequences of disturbed sleep on health outcomes. Measurements: self-reported sleep quality, physical function, stress, depression, and anxiety.

Awareness, Attitudes, and Actions Related to COVID-19 Among Adults With Chronic Conditions at the Onset of the U.S. Outbreak: A Cross-sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: The evolving outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is requiring social distancing and other measures to protect public health. However, messaging has been inconsistent and unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine COVID-19 awareness, knowledge, attitudes, and related behaviors among U.S. adults who are more vulnerable to complications of infection because of age and comorbid conditions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey linked to 3 active clinical trials and 1 cohort study. SETTING: 5 academic internal medicine practices and 2 federally qualified health centers. PATIENTS: 630 adults aged 23 to 88 years living with 1 or more chronic conditions. MEASUREMENTS: Self-reported knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to COVID-19. RESULTS: A fourth (24.6%) of participants were "very worried" about getting the coronavirus. Nearly a third could not correctly identify symptoms (28.3%) or ways to prevent infection (30.2%). One in 4 adults (24.6%) believed that they were "not at all likely" to get the virus, and 21.9% reported that COVID-19 had little or no effect on their daily routine. One in 10 respondents was very confident that the federal government could prevent a nationwide outbreak. In multivariable analyses, participants who were black, were living below the poverty level, and had low health literacy were more likely to be less worried about COVID-19, to not believe that they would become infected, and to feel less prepared for an outbreak. Those with low health literacy had greater confidence in the federal government response. LIMITATION: Cross-sectional study of adults with underlying health conditions in 1 city during the initial week of the COVID-19 U.S. outbreak. CONCLUSION: Many adults with comorbid conditions lacked critical knowledge about COVID-19 and, despite concern, were not changing routines or plans. Noted disparities suggest that greater public health efforts may be needed to mobilize the most vulnerable communities. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

The protocol of improving safe antibiotic prescribing in telehealth: A randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The CDC estimates that over 40% of Urgent Care visits are for acute respiratory infections (ARI), more than half involving inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions. Previous randomized trials in primary care clinics resulted in reductions in inappropriate antibiotic prescribing, but antibiotic stewardship interventions in telehealth have not been systematically assessed. To better understand how best to decrease inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in telehealth, we are conducting a large randomized quality improvement trial testing both patient- and physician-facing feedback and behavioral nudges embedded in the electronic health record. METHODS: Teladoc® clinicians are assigned to one of 9 arms in a 3 × 3 randomized trial. Each clinician is assigned to one of 3 Commitment groups (Public, Private, Control) and one of 3 Performance Feedback groups (Benchmark Peer Comparison, Trending, Control). After randomly selecting ⅓ of states and associated clinicians required for patient-facing components of the Public Commitment intervention, remaining clinicians are randomized to the Control and Private Commitment arms. Clinicians are randomized to the Performance Feedback conditions. The primary outcome is change from baseline in antibiotic prescribing rate for qualifying ARI visits. Secondary outcomes include changes in inappropriate prescribing and revisit rates. Secondary analyses include investigation of heterogeneity of treatment effects. With 1530 clinicians and an intra-clinician correlation in antibiotic prescribing rate of 0.5, we have >80% power to detect 1-7% absolute differences in antibiotic prescribing among groups. DISCUSSION: Findings from this trial may help inform telehealth stewardship strategies, determine whether significant differences exist between Commitment and Feedback interventions, and provide guidance for clinicians and patients to encourage safe and effective antibiotic use. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT05138874.

Assessment of Changes in Visits and Antibiotic Prescribing During the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Safety Program for Improving Antibiotic Use and the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Safety Program for Improving Antibiotic Use aimed to improve antibiotic prescribing in ambulatory care practices by engaging clinicians and staff to incorporate antibiotic stewardship into practice culture, communication, and decision-making. Little is known about implementation of antibiotic stewardship in ambulatory care practices. Objective: To examine changes in visits and antibiotic prescribing during the AHRQ Safety Program. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study evaluated a quality improvement intervention in ambulatory care throughout the US in 389 ambulatory care practices from December 1, 2019, to November 30, 2020. Exposures: The AHRQ Safety Program used webinars, audio presentations, educational tools, and office hours to engage stewardship leaders and clinical staff to address attitudes and cultures that challenge judicious antibiotic prescribing and incorporate best practices for the management of common infections. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of the Safety Program was antibiotic prescriptions per 100 acute respiratory infection (ARI) visits. Data on total visits and ARI visits were also collected. The number of visits and prescribing rates from baseline (September 1, 2019) to completion of the program (November 30, 2020) were compared. Results: Of 467 practices enrolled, 389 (83%) completed the Safety Program; of these, 292 (75%) submitted complete data with 6 590 485 visits to 5483 clinicians. Participants included 82 (28%) primary care practices, 103 (35%) urgent care practices, 34 (12%) federally supported practices, 39 (13%) pediatric urgent care practices, 21 (7%) pediatric-only practices, and 14 (5%) other practice types. Visits per practice per month decreased from a mean of 1624 (95% CI, 1317-1931) at baseline to a nadir of 906 (95% CI, 702-1111) early in the COVID-19 pandemic (April 2020), and were 1797 (95% CI, 1510-2084) at the end of the program. Total antibiotic prescribing decreased from 18.2% of visits at baseline to 9.5% at completion of the program (-8.7%; 95% CI, -9.9% to -7.6%). Acute respiratory infection visits per practice per month decreased from baseline (n = 321) to a nadir of 76 early in the pandemic (May 2020) and gradually increased through completion of the program (n = 239). Antibiotic prescribing for ARIs decreased from 39.2% at baseline to 24.7% at completion of the program (-14.5%; 95% CI, -16.8% to -12.2%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of US ambulatory practices that participated in the AHRQ Safety Program, significant reductions in the rates of overall and ARI-related antibiotic prescribing were noted, despite normalization of clinic visits by completion of the program. The forthcoming AHRQ Safety Program content may have utility in ambulatory practices across the US.

Behavioral Economics and Ambulatory Antibiotic Stewardship: A Narrative Review.

PURPOSE: Behavioral economics recognizes that contextual, psychological, social, and emotional factors powerfully influence decision-making. Behavioral economics has the potential to provide a better understanding of, and, through subtle environmental changes, or "nudges," improve persistent quality-of-care challenges, like ambulatory antibiotic overprescribing. Despite decades of admonitions and educational initiatives, in the United States, up to 50% of ambulatory antibiotic prescriptions remain inappropriate or not associated with a diagnosis. METHODS: We conducted a Medline search and performed a narrative review that examined the use of behavioral economics to understand the rationale for, and improvement of, ambulatory antibiotic prescribing. FINDINGS: Clinicians prescribe antibiotics inappropriately because of perceived patient demand, to maintain patient satisfaction, diagnostic uncertainty, or time pressure, among other reasons. Behavioral economics-informed approaches offer additional improvements in antibiotic prescribing beyond clinician education and communication training. Precommitment, in which clinicians publicize their intent to prescribe antibiotics "only when they are absolutely necessary," leverages clinicians' self-conception and a desire to act in a manner consistent with public statements. Precommitment was associated with a 20% absolute reduction in the inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections. Justification alerts, in which clinicians must provide a brief written rationale for prescribing antibiotics, leverages social accountability, redefines the status quo as an active choice, and helps clinicians to shift from fast to slow, careful thinking. With justification alerts, the absolute rate of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing decreased from 23% to 5%. Peer comparison, in which clinicians receive feedback comparing their performance to their top-performing peers, provides evidence of improved performance and leverages peoples' desire to conform to social norms. Peer comparison decreased absolute inappropriate antibiotic prescribing rates from 20% to 4%, a decrease that persisted for 12 months after the end of the intervention. Also, a one-time peer-comparison letter from a high-profile messenger to primary care practices with high rates of prescribing antibiotics, there was a 6-month, 3% decrease inantibiotic prescribing. Future directions in applying behavioral economics to the inappropriate antibiotic prescribing include paying careful attention to design details; improving intervention effectiveness and durability; making harms salient; participants' involvement in the development of interventions (the "Ikea effect"); factoring in patient satisfaction; and patient-facing nudges about antibiotic use and care-seeking. In addition, the COVID pandemic could aid in ambulatory antibiotic prescribing improvements due to changing cognitive frames around respiratory symptom evaluation and antibiotic prescribing. IMPLICATIONS: To improve ambulatory antibiotic prescribing, several behavioral economics-informed approaches-especially precommitment, justification alerts, and peer comparison-have reduced the rates of inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics to low levels.

Non-Visit-Based and Non-Infection-Related Antibiotic Use in the US: A Cohort Study of Privately Insured Patients During 2016-2018.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory antibiotic prescriptions without a clinic visit or without documentation of infection could represent overuse and contribute to adverse outcomes. We aim to describe US ambulatory antibiotic prescribing, including those without an associated visit or infection diagnosis. METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study using data of all patients receiving antibacterial, antibiotic prescriptions from 04/01/2016 to 06/30/2018 in a large US private health insurance plan. We identified outpatient antibiotic prescriptions as (1) associated with a clinician visit and an infection-related diagnosis; (2) associated with a clinician visit but no infection-related diagnosis; or (3) not associated with an in-person clinician visit in the 7 days before the prescription (non-visit-based). We then assessed whether non-visit-based antibiotic prescriptions (NVBAPs) differed from visit-based antibiotics by patient, clinician, or antibiotic characteristics using multivariable models. RESULTS: The cohort included 8.6M enrollees who filled 22.3M antibiotic prescriptions. NVBAP accounted for 31% (6.9M) of fills, and non-infection-related prescribing accounted for 22% (4.9M). NVBAP rates were lower for children than for adults (0-17 years old, 16%; 18-64 years old, 33%; >65 years old, 34%). Among most commonly prescribed antibiotic classes, NVBAP was highest for penicillins (36%) and lowest for cephalosporins (25%) and macrolides (25%). Specialist physicians had the highest rate of NVBAP (38%), followed by internists (28%), family medicine (20%), and pediatricians (10%). In multivariable models, NVBAP was associated with increasing age, and NVBAP was less likely for patients in the South, those with more baseline clinical visits, or those with chronic lung disease. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of ambulatory antibiotic use was either non-visit-based or non-infection-related. Particularly given health care changes due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, efforts to improve antibiotic prescribing must account for non-visit-based and non-infection-related prescribing.

Effect of Peer Benchmarking on Specialist Electronic Consult Performance in a Los Angeles Safety-Net: a Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Since the advent of COVID-19, accelerated adoption of systems that reduce face-to-face encounters has outpaced training and best practices. Electronic consultations (eConsults), structured communications between PCPs and specialists regarding a case, have been effective in reducing face-to-face specialist encounters. As the health system rapidly adapts to multiple new practices and communication tools, new mechanisms to measure and improve performance in this context are needed. OBJECTIVE: To test whether feedback comparing physicians to top performing peers using co-specialists' ratings improves performance. DESIGN: Cluster-randomized controlled trial PARTICIPANTS: Eighty facility-specialty clusters and 214 clinicians INTERVENTION: Providers in the feedback arms were sent messages that announced their membership in an elite group of "Top Performers" or provided actionable recommendations with feedback for providers that were "Not Top Performers." MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcomes were changes in peer ratings in the following performance dimensions after feedback was received: (1) elicitation of information from primary care practitioners; (2) adherence to institutional clinical guidelines; (3) agreement with peer's medical decision-making; (4) educational value; (5) relationship building. KEY RESULTS: Specialists showed significant improvements on 3 of the 5 consultation performance dimensions: medical decision-making (odds ratio 1.52, 95% confidence interval 1.08-2.14, p<.05), educational value (1.86, 1.17-2.96) and relationship building (1.63, 1.13-2.35) (both p<.01). CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic has shed light on clinicians' commitment to professionalism and service as we rapidly adapt to changing paradigms. Interventions that appeal to professional norms can help improve the efficacy of new systems of practice. We show that specialists' performance can be measured and improved with feedback using aspirational norms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03784950.

Changes in COVID-19 Knowledge, Beliefs, Behaviors, and Preparedness Among High-Risk Adults from the Onset to the Acceleration Phase of the US Outbreak.

BACKGROUND: The US outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) accelerated rapidly over a short time to become a public health crisis. OBJECTIVE: To assess how high-risk adults' COVID-19 knowledge, beliefs, behaviors, and sense of preparedness changed from the onset of the US outbreak (March 13-20, 2020) to the acceleration phase (March 27-April 7, 2020). DESIGN: Longitudinal, two-wave telephone survey. PARTICIPANTS: 588 predominately older adults with ≥ 1 chronic condition recruited from 4 active, federally funded studies in Chicago. MAIN MEASURES: Self-reported knowledge of COVID-19 symptoms and prevention, related beliefs, behaviors, and sense of preparedness. KEY RESULTS: From the onset to the acceleration phase, participants increasingly perceived COVID-19 to be a serious public health threat, reported more changes to their daily routine and plans, and reported greater preparedness. The proportion of respondents who believed they were "not at all likely" to get the virus decreased slightly (24.9 to 22.4%; p = 0.04), but there was no significant change in the proportion of those who were unable to accurately identify ways to prevent infection (29.2 to 25.7%; p 0.14). In multivariable analyses, black adults and those with lower health literacy were more likely to report less perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 (black adults: relative risk (RR) 1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-2.44, p = 0.02; marginal health literacy: RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.26-3.07, p < 0.01). Individuals with low health literacy remained more likely to feel unprepared for the outbreak (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.11-2.92, p = 0.02) and to express confidence in the federal government response (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.49-3.00, p < 0.001) CONCLUSIONS: Adults at higher risk for COVID-19 continue to lack critical knowledge about prevention. While participants reported greater changes to daily routines and plans, disparities continued to exist in perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 and in preparedness. Public health messaging to date may not be effectively reaching vulnerable communities.