Background: Antibiotic time-outs can promote critical thinking and greater attention to reviewing indications for continuation. Objective: We pilot tested an antibiotic time-out program at a tertiary care teaching hospital where vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam continuation past day 3 had previously required infectious diseases service approval. Methods: The time-out program consisted of 3 components: (1) an electronic antimicrobial dashboard that aggregated infection-relevant clinical data; (2) a templated note in the electronic medical record that included a structured review of antibiotic indications and that provided automatic approval of continuation of therapy when indicated; and (3) an educational and social marketing campaign. Results: In the first 6 months of program implementation, vancomycin was discontinued by day 5 in 93/145 (64%) courses where a time-out was performed on day 4 versus in 96/199 (48%) 1 year prior (P = .04). Seven vancomycin continuations via template (5% of time-outs) were guidelinediscordant by retrospective chart review versus none 1 year prior (P = .002). Piperacillin-tazobactam was discontinued by day 5 in 70/105 (67%) courses versus 58/93 (62%) 1 year prior (P = .55); 9 continuations (9% of time-outs) were guideline-discordant versus two 1 year prior (P = .06). A usability survey completed by 32 physicians demonstrated modest satisfaction with the overall program, antimicrobial dashboard, and renewal templates. Conclusions: By providing practitioners with clinical informatics support and guidance, the intervention increased provider confidence in making decisions to de-escalate antimicrobial therapy in ambiguous circumstances wherein they previously sought authorization for continuation from an antimicrobial steward. 1-5 Inappropriate antimicrobial therapy leads to excess antimicrobial resistance, adverse events, and health care costs. Key6-13 Promotion of excess in antimicrobial resistance is particularly troubling in an age when multidrug-resistant organisms can no longer be effectively treated by any available antibiotics and few potentially effective agents are under development.14 Antimicrobial stewardship may be broadly defined as a program or series of interventions to improve the appropriateness of antimicrobial use, and it is a key strategy in combating antimicrobial resistance.9,15-17 Unfortunately, best practices in stewardship remain unclear.18 Whereas available data indicate that restrictive interventions (ie, limiting access to antibiotics through formulary or approval policies) have a significantly greater impact on prescribing practices in the short term than do persuasive measures such as dissemination of educational resources and/or outreach, reminders, or audit-feedback, these benefits do not persist, are less scalable, and can provoke negative reactions from providers who prefer to maintain autonomy in decision making. 19,20 Thus, stewardship must find a balance between restrictive and persuasive methods of influencing antimicrobial prescriptio...

This preliminary analysis provides the first evidence that academic detailing influenced naloxone prescribing rates in a large, integrated health care system at 1 and 2 years. In addition, AD-exposed providers had a higher average difference in naloxone prescribing rate compared with AD-unexposed providers after 2 years of follow-up.

BackgroundActive consideration of effective medications to treat alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a consensus standard of care, yet knowledge and use of these medications are very low across diverse settings. This study evaluated the overall effectiveness a multifaceted academic detailing program to address this persistent quality problem in the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA), as well as the context and process factors that explained variation in effectiveness across sites.MethodsAn interrupted time series design, analyzed with mixed-effects segmented logistic regression, was used to evaluate changes in level and rate of change in the monthly percent of patients with a clinically documented AUD who received naltrexone, acamprosate, disulfiram, or topiramate. Using data from a 20 month post-implementation period, intervention sites (n = 37) were compared to their own 16 month pre-implementation performance and separately to the rest of VHA.ResultsFrom immediately pre-intervention to the end of the observation period, the percent of patients in the intervention sites with AUD who received medication increased over 3.4 % in absolute terms and 68 % in relative terms (i.e., 4.9–8.3 %). This change was significant compared to the pre-implementation period in the intervention sites and secular trends in control sites. Sites with lower pre-implementation adoption, more person hours of detailing, but fewer people detailed, had larger immediate increases in medication receipt after implementation. The average number of detailing encounters per person was associated with steeper increases in slope over time.ConclusionsThis study found empirical support for a multifaceted quality improvement strategy aimed at increasing access to and utilization of pharmacotherapy for AUD. Future studies should focus on determining how to enhance the programs effects, especially in non-responsive locations.

Background: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a critical concern among US veterans. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) recommends buprenorphine as a first-line treatment for OUD; however, only 35% of veterans with an OUD currently receive medication treatment. Practical barriers, including the capacity of providers to prescribe, may affect delivery of buprenorphine. We examined the current state of buprenorphine treatment within the VHA. Methods: National VHA administrative databases were queried to identify all providers credentialed to prescribe buprenorphine as of January 2018. Data were extracted on providers’ prescribing capacity (30, 100, or 275 patients concurrently) and number of patients who received buprenorphine in the prior 180 days. Results: A total of 1458 VHA providers were credentialed to prescribe buprenorphine. Forty-three percent of providers had not prescribed buprenorphine to any VHA patients in the past 180 days. Of those that prescribed to at least 1 patient, providers still prescribed to fewer patients than their capacity, regardless of their patient panel size (30, 100, or 275), prescribing to 18.5 patients on average. Conclusions: VHA providers are prescribing buprenorphine below their capacity. A multipronged approach to increase the number of credentialed providers and address barriers to prescribing is needed to ensure that veterans get effective treatment for OUD.

No abstract