Objective indexes for comparing platelet usage among peer hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study

Background and Aims

Besides hospital size, clinical diagnosis and severity of patient cases determine the total platelet usage. Therefore, the appropriateness of platelet usage could not be compared simply with the total units of platelet usage in each hospital. This study aimed to objectively monitor and analyze platelet usage after implementing a single-unit issuing policy for each platelet transfusion in our hospital in October 2020.

Materials and Methods

We used three objective indices, X, Y, and Z, to monitor platelet usage and compared it with other hospitals. Three indices were generated by dividing the annual total units of platelet usage by the total annual reimbursement, total number of admissions, and average total reimbursement per admission for each hospital.

Results

The new indices X and Y alleviated hospital size-dependent differences. Index Y was preferred over X because its value fluctuated less during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Z index was adjusted for the average total reimbursement per admission, and the results showed that more patients with higher disease complexity did not have increased platelet usage during the COVID-19 pandemic. In our hospital (H1), index Z decreased from 2019 to 2021 due to a policy of issuing a single unit for each platelet transfusion.

Conclusion

These three objective indices are suitable for peer comparison and monitoring platelet usage in hospitals, irrespective of their size. They could be applied to promote patient blood management and provide an early response to the gradual shortage of blood resources owing to the aging population and declining birth rate in Taiwan.

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.

Population-Wide Peer Comparison Audit and Feedback to Reduce Antibiotic Initiation and Duration in Long-Term Care Facilities with Embedded Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic overprescribing in long-term care settings is driven by prescriber preferences and is associated with preventable harms for residents. We aimed to determine whether peer comparison audit and feedback reporting for physicians reduces antibiotic overprescribing among residents.

METHODS

We employed a province wide, difference-in-differences study of antibiotic prescribing audit and feedback, with an embedded pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) across all long-term care facilities in Ontario, Canada, in 2019. The study year included 1238 physicians caring for 96 185 residents. In total, 895 (72%) physicians received no feedback; 343 (28%) were enrolled to receive audit and feedback and randomized 1:1 to static or dynamic reports. The primary outcomes were proportion of residents initiated on an antibiotic and proportion of antibiotics prolonged beyond 7 days per quarter.

RESULTS

Among all residents, between the first quarter of 2018 and last quarter of 2019, there were temporal declines in antibiotic initiation (28.4% to 21.3%) and prolonged duration (34.4% to 29.0%). Difference-in-differences analysis confirmed that feedback was associated with a greater decline in prolonged antibiotics (adjusted difference -2.65%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -4.93 to -.28%, P = .026), but there was no significant difference in antibiotic initiation. The reduction in antibiotic durations was associated with 335 912 fewer days of treatment. The embedded RCT detected no differences in outcomes between the dynamic and static reports.

CONCLUSIONS

Peer comparison audit and feedback is a pragmatic intervention that can generate small relative reductions in the use of antibiotics for prolonged durations that translate to large reductions in antibiotic days of treatment across populations. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT03807466.

Sustained Reductions in Overall and Unnecessary Antibiotic Prescribing at Primary Care Clinics in a Veterans Affairs Healthcare System Following a Multifaceted Stewardship Intervention

BACKGROUND

Most antibiotic prescribing is in outpatient settings. However, antibiotic stewardship has focused overwhelmingly on hospitalized patients. In a few studies, behavioral interventions decreased unnecessary outpatient prescribing against acute respiratory infections, but data are conflicting on sustained benefits after intervention discontinuation.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, observational study in 7 primary care clinics, in which an intervention comprised of clinician education, peer comparisons, and computer decision support order sets was directed against all antibiotic prescribing. After 6 months, peer comparisons were discontinued. Antibiotic prescribing was compared in the baseline (January-June 2016), intervention (January-June 2017), and postintervention (January-June 2018) periods.

RESULTS

Mean antibiotic prescriptions significantly decreased from 76.9 (baseline) to 49.5 (intervention) and 56.3 (postintervention) per 1000 visits (35.6% and 26.8% reductions, respectively; P values < .001). The rate of unnecessary antibiotic prescribing (ie, antibiotic not indicated) decreased from 58.8% (baseline) to 37.8% (intervention) and 44.3% (postintervention) (35.7% and 24.7% decreases, respectively; P = .001 and P = .01). Overall, 19.9% (27/136), 36.6% (66/180), and 34.9% (67/192) of antibiotics were prescribed optimally (ie, antibiotics were indicated, and a guideline-concordant agent was prescribed for guideline-concordant duration) during the baseline, intervention, and postintervention periods, respectively (baseline vs intervention and postintervention, P = .001 and P = .003, respectively). Differences between intervention and postintervention periods in overall, unnecessary, or optimal antibiotic prescribing were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

A multifaceted outpatient stewardship intervention achieved reductions in overall, unnecessary, and suboptimal antibiotic prescription rates, which were sustained for a year after components of the intervention were discontinued. There is opportunity for further improvement, as inappropriate and suboptimal prescribing remained common.

Decreased Overall and Inappropriate Antibiotic Prescribing in a Veterans Affairs Hospital Emergency Department following a Peer Comparison-Based Stewardship Intervention

Antibiotic prescribing is very common in emergency departments (EDs). Optimal stewardship intervention strategies in EDs are not well defined. We conducted a prospective, observational cohort study in a Veterans Affairs ED in which clinician education and monthly e-mail-based peer comparisons were directed against all oral antibiotic prescribing for discharged patients. Oral antibiotic prescriptions were compared in baseline (June 2016 to December 2017) and intervention (January to June 2018) periods using an interrupted time series regression model. Prescribing appropriateness was compared during January to June 2017 and the intervention period. During the intervention period, antibiotic prescriptions decreased monthly by 10.4 prescriptions per 1,000 ED visits (P = 0.07 [95% confidence interval {CI}, -21.7 to 1.0]). The relative decrease in the trend of antibiotic prescriptions during the intervention period compared to baseline was 9.9 prescriptions per 1,000 ED visits per month (P = 0.07 [95% CI, -20.9 to 1.0]). The intervention was associated with a significant decrease and increase in amoxicillin-clavulanate and cephalexin prescriptions, respectively (P < 0.001, P = 0.004). Decreasing trends in ciprofloxacin prescriptions during the baseline period were maintained during the intervention. Unnecessary antibiotic prescribing (i.e., antibiotic not indicated) decreased from 55.6% to 38.7% during the intervention (30.4% decrease, P = 0.003). Optimal antibiotic prescribing (i.e., antibiotics were indicated, and a guideline-concordant agent was prescribed for guideline-concordant duration) increased by 36% (21.6% to 29.3%, P = 0.12). A peer comparison-based stewardship intervention directed at ED clinicians was associated with reductions in overall and unnecessary oral antibiotic prescribing. There is potential to further improve antibiotic use as suboptimal prescribing remained common.

Improved Antibiotic Prescribing within a Veterans Affairs Primary Care System through a Multifaceted Intervention Centered on Peer Comparison of Overall Antibiotic Prescribing Rates

Reducing inappropriate outpatient antibiotic use is an important national goal. Limited data exist on targeted education and peer comparison of overall antibiotic prescribing rates as an antimicrobial stewardship strategy. Primary care professionals (PCPs) from all seven clinics within our health care system were offered an education session, followed by monthly e-mails with their antibiotic prescribing rate, peer prescribing rates, and a system target. A pre-post analysis was conducted to compare prescribing rates during the intervention period (January to June 2017) to a seasonal baseline (January to June 2016) using a regression model. A random sample of prescriptions was reviewed for adherence to consensus guidelines. Educational sessions were attended by 68.5% (50/73) of PCPs. From the baseline to the intervention period, the mean rate of monthly antibiotic prescriptions declined from 76.9 to 49.5 per 1,000 office visits (35.6% reduction [P < 0.001]). Among reviewed cases, unnecessary antibiotic prescribing declined (58.8% [80/136] versus 38.9% [70/180]; 33.9% reduction [P = 0.0006]), and the rate of optimally prescribed antibiotics increased (19.9% [27/136] versus 30% [54/180]; 50.8% increase [P = 0.05]). If an antibiotic was indicated, there were no significant differences in prescribing of guideline-discordant agents (21.4% [12/56] versus 19.1% [21/110] [P = 0.8]) or guideline-concordant agents for a guideline-discordant duration (38.6% [17/44] versus 39.3% [35/89] [P = 1]). There were significant reductions in azithromycin and fluoroquinolone prescriptions (50.9% and 59.4% [P values of <0.001], respectively), but most prescriptions for these agents in the intervention period remained inappropriate. Initial education followed by monthly peer comparison of overall antibiotic prescribing rates reduced total and unnecessary antibiotic prescribing in primary care clinics.

Effect of Audit and Feedback on Physician Adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pneumonia and Sepsis

The objective was to estimate the effect of feedback with blinded peer comparison on emergency physician adherence to guidelines for appropriate antibiotic administration for inpatient pneumonia and completion of the 3-hour Surviving Sepsis Bundle for severe sepsis. The authors performed a quasi-experiment using a stepped wedge design at a single urban safety net hospital. Attending emergency physicians were randomized into 6 clusters. Once a cluster crossed into the intervention group, physicians in that cluster began receiving detailed feedback with blinded peer comparison on their adherence to guidelines for pneumonia and sepsis. Feedback with blinded peer comparison significantly improved guideline adherence from 52% without feedback to 65% with feedback (difference = 13%, 95% confidence interval = 4% to 22%). In adjusted analyses, the odds of providing guideline adherent care were 1.8 (95% confidence interval = 1.01-3.2) after the introduction of feedback with blinded peer comparison. Feedback with blinded peer comparison significantly improved emergency physician guideline adherence.

Development and Assessment of a Physician-Specific Antimicrobial Usage and Spectrum Feedback Tool

Individualized data are required but difficult to obtain for effective antimicrobial stewardship audit and feedback. We developed a summative tool to evaluate consumption (days of therapy per 100 patient-days) and spectrum of antimicrobials that was also acceptable to individual clinicians.

Using Behavioral Science to Design a Peer Comparison Intervention for Postabortion Family Planning in Nepal

Despite the provision of free and subsidized family planning services and clients' demonstrated intentions to delay pregnancies, family planning uptake among women who receive abortion and postabortion services at Sunaulo Parivar Nepal (SPN), one of Nepal's largest non-governmental sexual and reproductive health (SRH) providers, remains low. Through meetings, interviews, and observations with SPN's stakeholders, service providers, and clients at its 36 SRH centers, we developed hypotheses about client- and provider-side barriers that may inhibit postabortion family planning (PAFP) uptake. On the provider side, we found that the lack of benchmarks (such as the performance of other facilities) against which providers could compare their own performance and the lack of feedback on the performance were important barriers to PAFP uptake. We designed several variants of three interventions to address these barriers. Through conversations with team members at SPN's centralized support office and service providers at SPN centers, we prioritized a peer-comparison tool that allows providers at one center to compare their performance with that of other similar centers. We used feedback from the community of providers on the tools' usability and features to select a variant of the tool that also leverages and reinforces providers' strong intrinsic motivation to provide quality PAFP services. In this paper, we detail the process of identifying barriers and creating an intervention to overcome those barriers. The intervention's effectiveness will be tested with a center-level, stepped-wedge randomized control trial in which SPN's 36 centers will be randomly assigned to receive the intervention at 1-month intervals over a 6-month period. Existing medical record data will be used to monitor family planning uptake.