Objective: The aim of the study was to describe implementation of an outpatient antibiotic stewardship program at primary care practices in South Florida and the proportion of appropriate and inappropriate orders and reasons for inappropriateness during the intervention.
Methods: An antibiotic stewardship committee at a large hospital system implemented aspects of The Core Elements of Outpatient Antibiotic Stewardship at outpatient facilities in 2018. Interventions included an education/awareness campaign directed at prescribers (audit and feedback, routine education at prescribers' meetings, availability of updated guidelines in a shared drive and antibiogram via intranet) and patients (posters, tear-off sheets on symptom relief for viral illness). Orders were evaluated using clinical documentation, current antibiogram, and Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines. An appropriate order was defined as a correct antibiotic and dose/frequency and duration of therapy. An inappropriate antibiotic order was defined as not meeting 1 or more of the abovementioned conditions. Descriptive statistics assessed the data.
Results: In this retrospective review of 2934 oral antibiotic orders from January 1 to December 31, 2018, 2565 (87.4%) were necessary while 369 (12.6%) were unnecessary. Of 2565 necessary orders, 1448 (56.5%) were appropriate while 1117 (43.5%) were inappropriate. Of 1117 inappropriate orders, 24.9% had all 3 conditions; 41.5% of inappropriate orders were solely due to wrong duration of therapy.
Conclusions: Although our institution demonstrated commitment to optimizing antibiotic prescribing by providing resources to clinicians and patients about evidence-based antibiotic prescribing, inappropriate antibiotic prescribing was persistent. The interventions used must continue to evolve and include point-of-care access to guidelines and clinical decision support tools.
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.