User login
TOPLINE:
particularly in general practice.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted this study to assess the impact of an intervention on antibiotic prescribing and dispensing for common infections.
- Healthcare professionals from general practice, out-of-hours services, nursing homes, and community pharmacies in France, Greece, Lithuania, Poland, and Spain registered their interactions with patients related to antibiotic prescribing and dispensing both prior to and following the intervention.
- Overall, 407 healthcare professionals participated in the first registration, of whom 345 undertook the intervention and participated in the second registration; they documented 10,744 infections during the initial registration and 10,132 cases during the second period.
- The 5-hour intervention included evaluating and discussing feedback on the outcomes of the initial registration, improving communication skills, and offering communication tools.
- The impact of this intervention was calculated from potential unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions, non–first-line antibiotic choices, and percentage of good and wrong safety advice given for each prescription.
TAKEAWAY:
- General practice clinicians showed a significant overall reduction in unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions from 72.2% during the first registration to 65.2% after the intervention (P < .001), with variations across countries ranging from a 19.9% reduction in Lithuania to a 1.3% increase in Greece.
- Out-of-hours services showed a minimal change in unnecessary antibiotic prescribing from 52.5% to 52.1%, whereas nursing homes showed a slight increase from 56.1% to 58.6%.
- Community pharmacies showed significant improvements, with the provision of correct advice increasing by 17% (P < .001) and safety checks improving from 47% to 55.3% in 1 year (P < .001).
- However, the choice of non–first-line antibiotics significantly increased by 29.2% in the second registration period (P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings highlight the need for alternative and tailored approaches in antimicrobial stewardship programs in long-term care facilities, with a greater focus on nurses. This includes implementing hygiene measures and empowering nurses to improve the diagnosis of suspected infections, such as urinary tract infections, while debunking prevalent myths and providing clear-cut information for better management of these common infections,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Ana García-Sangenís, of Fundació Institut Universitari per a la Recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina, Barcelona, Spain, and was published online on November 12, 2024, in Family Practice.
LIMITATIONS:
The study lacked a control group, which limited the ability to attribute changes solely to the intervention. The voluntary participation of healthcare professionals might have introduced selection bias, as participants might have had a greater interest in quality improvement programs than the general population of healthcare providers. Clinical outcomes were not evaluated, which may have created ambiguity regarding whether complication rates or clinical failures varied between the groups.
DISCLOSURES:
This study received funding from the European Union’s Third Health Programme. One author reported receiving fees from pharmaceutical companies and acting as a member of the board of Steno Diabetes Center, Odense, Denmark.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
particularly in general practice.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted this study to assess the impact of an intervention on antibiotic prescribing and dispensing for common infections.
- Healthcare professionals from general practice, out-of-hours services, nursing homes, and community pharmacies in France, Greece, Lithuania, Poland, and Spain registered their interactions with patients related to antibiotic prescribing and dispensing both prior to and following the intervention.
- Overall, 407 healthcare professionals participated in the first registration, of whom 345 undertook the intervention and participated in the second registration; they documented 10,744 infections during the initial registration and 10,132 cases during the second period.
- The 5-hour intervention included evaluating and discussing feedback on the outcomes of the initial registration, improving communication skills, and offering communication tools.
- The impact of this intervention was calculated from potential unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions, non–first-line antibiotic choices, and percentage of good and wrong safety advice given for each prescription.
TAKEAWAY:
- General practice clinicians showed a significant overall reduction in unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions from 72.2% during the first registration to 65.2% after the intervention (P < .001), with variations across countries ranging from a 19.9% reduction in Lithuania to a 1.3% increase in Greece.
- Out-of-hours services showed a minimal change in unnecessary antibiotic prescribing from 52.5% to 52.1%, whereas nursing homes showed a slight increase from 56.1% to 58.6%.
- Community pharmacies showed significant improvements, with the provision of correct advice increasing by 17% (P < .001) and safety checks improving from 47% to 55.3% in 1 year (P < .001).
- However, the choice of non–first-line antibiotics significantly increased by 29.2% in the second registration period (P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings highlight the need for alternative and tailored approaches in antimicrobial stewardship programs in long-term care facilities, with a greater focus on nurses. This includes implementing hygiene measures and empowering nurses to improve the diagnosis of suspected infections, such as urinary tract infections, while debunking prevalent myths and providing clear-cut information for better management of these common infections,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Ana García-Sangenís, of Fundació Institut Universitari per a la Recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina, Barcelona, Spain, and was published online on November 12, 2024, in Family Practice.
LIMITATIONS:
The study lacked a control group, which limited the ability to attribute changes solely to the intervention. The voluntary participation of healthcare professionals might have introduced selection bias, as participants might have had a greater interest in quality improvement programs than the general population of healthcare providers. Clinical outcomes were not evaluated, which may have created ambiguity regarding whether complication rates or clinical failures varied between the groups.
DISCLOSURES:
This study received funding from the European Union’s Third Health Programme. One author reported receiving fees from pharmaceutical companies and acting as a member of the board of Steno Diabetes Center, Odense, Denmark.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
particularly in general practice.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted this study to assess the impact of an intervention on antibiotic prescribing and dispensing for common infections.
- Healthcare professionals from general practice, out-of-hours services, nursing homes, and community pharmacies in France, Greece, Lithuania, Poland, and Spain registered their interactions with patients related to antibiotic prescribing and dispensing both prior to and following the intervention.
- Overall, 407 healthcare professionals participated in the first registration, of whom 345 undertook the intervention and participated in the second registration; they documented 10,744 infections during the initial registration and 10,132 cases during the second period.
- The 5-hour intervention included evaluating and discussing feedback on the outcomes of the initial registration, improving communication skills, and offering communication tools.
- The impact of this intervention was calculated from potential unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions, non–first-line antibiotic choices, and percentage of good and wrong safety advice given for each prescription.
TAKEAWAY:
- General practice clinicians showed a significant overall reduction in unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions from 72.2% during the first registration to 65.2% after the intervention (P < .001), with variations across countries ranging from a 19.9% reduction in Lithuania to a 1.3% increase in Greece.
- Out-of-hours services showed a minimal change in unnecessary antibiotic prescribing from 52.5% to 52.1%, whereas nursing homes showed a slight increase from 56.1% to 58.6%.
- Community pharmacies showed significant improvements, with the provision of correct advice increasing by 17% (P < .001) and safety checks improving from 47% to 55.3% in 1 year (P < .001).
- However, the choice of non–first-line antibiotics significantly increased by 29.2% in the second registration period (P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings highlight the need for alternative and tailored approaches in antimicrobial stewardship programs in long-term care facilities, with a greater focus on nurses. This includes implementing hygiene measures and empowering nurses to improve the diagnosis of suspected infections, such as urinary tract infections, while debunking prevalent myths and providing clear-cut information for better management of these common infections,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Ana García-Sangenís, of Fundació Institut Universitari per a la Recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina, Barcelona, Spain, and was published online on November 12, 2024, in Family Practice.
LIMITATIONS:
The study lacked a control group, which limited the ability to attribute changes solely to the intervention. The voluntary participation of healthcare professionals might have introduced selection bias, as participants might have had a greater interest in quality improvement programs than the general population of healthcare providers. Clinical outcomes were not evaluated, which may have created ambiguity regarding whether complication rates or clinical failures varied between the groups.
DISCLOSURES:
This study received funding from the European Union’s Third Health Programme. One author reported receiving fees from pharmaceutical companies and acting as a member of the board of Steno Diabetes Center, Odense, Denmark.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.