| Popis: |
Background Between 15–50% of patients seen in ambulatory settings are prescribed an antibiotic. At least one-third of this usage is considered unnecessary. Multiple tools have emerged to evaluate antibiotic prescribing in ambulatory settings. The toolkits, MITIGATE and Choosing Wisely, have been funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and promoted by the American Board of Internal Medicine, respectively, but use different reporting criteria. Notably, the target rate of antibiotic prescribing in the MITIGATE framework is zero, whereas the target rate for Choosing Wisely is not zero because it includes diagnoses for which an antibiotic may be appropriate. We compared both to evaluate prescribing in primary care and specialty clinics, urgent care, and the emergency department. Methods This was a single-center observational study. Electronic medical record data were accessed to determine antibiotic prescribing and diagnosis codes. The primary outcome was rate of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing overall and in each of the individual settings. Results Between March 2018 and April 2019, 42,650 patient visits met MITIGATE inclusion criteria and 11% received an antibiotic unnecessarily. In the same time-period, 23,366 patient visits met Choosing Wisely inclusion criteria and 17% received an antibiotic unnecessarily. Within the MITIGATE framework, inappropriate prescribing was highest in the ED (17%), followed by primary care (12%), urgent care (10%), and specialty care (5%). Choosing Wisely, inappropriate prescribing was highest in primary care (23%), followed by urgent care (15%), and specialty care (8%). The ED was not included in the Choosing Wisely technical specifications. The top coded diagnosis in both frameworks was acute respiratory infection, unspecified. Conclusion Rates of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing varied widely depending upon the toolkit used. Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in primary care by Choosing Wisely framework was double that of MITIGATE. Careful consideration of the differences and goals of using these toolkits is needed both on the local level for individual provider feedback and more broadly, when comparing prescribing rates between institutions. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures. |
