Search

Objective:To determine whether a clinician-directed acute respiratory tract infection (ARI) intervention was associated with improved antibiotic prescribing and patient outcomes across a large US healthcare system.Design:Multicenter retrospective quasi-experimental analysis of outpatient visits with a diagnosis of uncomplicated ARI over a 7-year period.Participants:Outpatients with ARI diagnoses: sinusitis, pharyngitis, bronchitis, and unspecified upper respiratory tract infection (URI-NOS). Outpatients with concurrent infection or select comorbid conditions were excluded.Intervention(s):Audit and feedback with peer comparison of antibiotic prescribing rates and academic detailing of clinicians with frequent ARI visits. Antimicrobial stewards and academic detailing personnel delivered the intervention; facility and clinician participation were voluntary.Measure(s):We calculated the probability to receive antibiotics for an ARI before and after implementation. Secondary outcomes included probability for a return clinic visits or infection-related hospitalization, before and after implementation. Intervention effects were assessed with logistic generalized estimating equation models. Facility participation was tracked, and results were stratified by quartile of facility intervention intensity.Results:We reviewed 1,003,509 and 323,023 uncomplicated ARI visits before and after the implementation of the intervention, respectively. The probability to receive antibiotics for ARI decreased after implementation (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78–0.86). Facilities with the highest quartile of intervention intensity demonstrated larger reductions in antibiotic prescribing (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.59–0.80) compared to nonparticipating facilities (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73–1.09). Return visits (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.94–1.07) and infection-related hospitalizations (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.92–1.59) were not different before and after implementation within facilities that performed intensive implementation.Conclusions:Implementation of a nationwide ARI management intervention (ie, audit and feedback with academic detailing) was associated with improved ARI management in an intervention intensity–dependent manner. No impact on ARI-related clinical outcomes was observed.

To examine the impact of full-time equivalent employee (FTEE) allocation to academic detailers on naloxone prescribing at the U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VA).Longitudinal nonequivalent control group posttest-only design using a random effects model.Closed cohort of primary care providers exposed to academic detailing between September 1, 2016, and September 20, 2018, at VA.Previous analysis identified a cutoff of 0.40 FTEE was associated with a greater return on investment. We evaluated whether this level of FTEE allocation was associated with increases in naloxone prescribing rates and compared providers who had an interaction with an academic detailer allocated 0.4 FTEE or greater (high FTEE) to providers who interacted with an academic detailer allocated less than 0.4 FTEE (low FTEE).Among VA primary care providers who received academic detailing, 1770 (68%) had interactions with a high FTEE academic detailer. There were no differences in demographics between providers who interacted with high FTEE and low FTEE academic detailers except for the distribution of provider classes (P = 0.004) and geographic districts (P0.001). Providers who interacted with high FTEE academic detailers had a greater average monthly number of naloxone prescriptions prescribed compared with low FTEE academic detailers (0.60 vs. 0.53; P = 0.005). In the random effects model, there was a 65% greater increase in the average monthly number of naloxone prescriptions prescribed among providers who interacted with a high FTEE academic detailer compared with providers who interacted with low FTEE academic detailers (P = 0.027). We also observed a dose-dependent relationship between the number of naloxone prescribed and the amount of FTEE allocated.This observational study highlights the potential benefits (e.g., increased naloxone prescribing) of academic detailers having more FTEE allocated. Hence, implementation of academic detailing needs to consider the amount of dedicated time for academic detailers, given competing VA priorities.

Background Benzodiazepine use in the US Veterans Administration (VA) has been decreasing; however, a small number of veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) continue to receive benzodiazepine. Academic detailing, a targeted-educational outreach intervention, was implemented at VA to help reduce the disparity between existing and evidence-based practices, including the reduction in benzodiazepine use in veterans with PTSD. Since evidence to support the national implementation of academic detailing in this clinical scenario was scarce, we performed a quality improvement evaluation on academic detailing's impact on benzodiazepine use in veterans with PTSD. Methods A retrospective cohort design was used to evaluate the impact of academic detailing on benzodiazepine prescribing in veterans with PTSD from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016. Providers exposed to academic detailing (AD-exposed) were compared with providers unexposed to academic detailing (AD-unexposed) using generalized estimating equations (GEEs) controlling for baseline covariates. Secondary aims evaluated academic detailing's impact on average lorazepam equivalent daily dose (LEDD), total LEDD, and benzodiazepine day supply. Results Overall, there was a decrease in the prevalence in benzodiazepine use in veterans with PTSD from 115.5 to 103.3 per 1000 population ( P Conclusions Although benzodiazepine use has been decreasing in veterans with PTSD, opportunities to improve prescribing continue to exist at the VA. In this quality improvement evaluation, AD-exposed providers were associated with a greater reduction in the prevalence of veterans with PTSD and a benzodiazepine prescription compared with AD-unexposed providers.

Academic detailing, an educational outreach that promotes evidence-based practices to improve the quality of care for patients, has primarily been delivered using one-on-one in-person interactions. In 2018, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Pharmacy Benefits Management implemented a pilot virtual academic detailing program to increase naloxone prescribing among veterans at risk for opioid overdose or death. The aim of this evaluation was to compare virtual and in-person academic detailing on naloxone prescribing rates at VA.A retrospective quasi-experimental pretest-posttest non-equivalent groups design was used to compare virtual academic detailing and in-person academic detailing on naloxone prescribing rates 12 months before and after providers received a naloxone-specific encounter at three VA regional networks between January 1, 2018 to May 31, 2020. Subgroup analysis was performed on rural providers. Generalized estimating equation models were constructed to compare the difference in naloxone prescribing rates before and after receiving virtual or in-person academic detailing controlling for provider-level characteristics.Providers who received virtual (N = 67) or in-person (N = 186) academic detailing had significant increases in naloxone prescribing, but the differences in the naloxone rates between the groups were not statistically significant (difference in changes in naloxone rates=+0.63; 95% CI: -2.23, 3.48). Similar findings were reported for rural providers.Providers who received naloxone-related in-person or virtual academic detailing had increased naloxone prescribing rates; however, there were no differences between the two types of modalities. Virtual academic detailing is a viable alternative for delivering academic detailing and allows academic detailers to expand their reach to rural providers.

Objectives To assess the process and outcomes of academic detailing to enhance the Opioid Safety Initiative and the Psychotropic Drug Safety Initiative to reduce co-prescribing of opioid-benzodiazepine combinations in veterans. Methods A retrospective cohort design was conducted to evaluate the impact of implementing an academic detailing program on opioid-benzodiazepine co-prescribing between October 2014 through March 2019 at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The primary outcome was the monthly prevalence of veterans (number per 1,000 population) who were co-prescribed opioid-benzodiazepine combination. Process measure was evaluated using implementation reach (proportion of providers who received academic detailing). Station-level analysis was performed using a linear fixed effects regression model to evaluate the rate of change in the prevalence of veterans co-prescribed opioid-benzodiazepine. Results Altogether 130 VA stations was included for analysis; 119 stations implemented opioid-related or benzodiazepine-related academic detailing, and 11 stations did not. Stations that had implemented academic detailing had a 33% greater monthly reduction on the opioid-benzodiazepine co-prescribing prevalence compared to stations that did not implement academic detailing (P = .036). In the linear fixed effects regression model, stations that were expected to have 100% of providers exposed to academic detailing were statistically associated with a greater decrease in the monthly prevalence of Veterans co-prescribed opioid-benzodiazepine by 4.9 veterans per 1,000 population (P Conclusions Stations that implemented academic detailing and had a higher proportion of providers who were exposed to opioid- or benzodiazepine-related academic detailing had a significant decrease in the monthly prevalence of Veterans co-prescribed opioid-benzodiazepine combinations.

Objectives To evaluate the effects of the U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VA) National Academic Detailing Service alongside the Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) program on naloxone prescriptions prescribed from October 2014 to September 2016. Methods A retrospective, repeated measures cohort study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a real-world application of academic detailing (AD) alongside OEND on providers' outpatient naloxone prescribing from October 2014 to September 2016. Outcome was the number of naloxone prescriptions prescribed per month per provider. During the study period, VA providers were aware of OEND, but may not have been exposed to academic detailing. Therefore, providers were categorized as exposed when the first OEND-specific academic detailing session was provided during the study period. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate the association between exposure to academic detailing and monthly naloxone prescriptions prescribed while taking into account the correlation within each provider. Incident rate ratios with 95% CIs were reported. Results Seven hundred fifty (22.6%) of 3313 providers received at least 1 OEND-specific academic detailing visit. At 1 year, the average number of naloxone prescriptions per month was 3-times greater in AD-exposed providers compared with AD-unexposed providers (95% CI 2.0-5.3); and at 2 years, the average number of naloxone prescriptions was 7-times greater (95% CI 3.0-17.9). Moreover, the average difference in naloxone prescribing from baseline to 2 years was 7.1% greater in AD-exposed providers compared with AD-unexposed providers (95% CI 2.0%-12.5%). Conclusions 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.

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.

Objective To describe the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Academic Detailing Service's (ADS) experience with the development and use of clinical dashboards across the VA's national clinical campaigns. We focused only on dashboards developed by the VA ADS national clinical program managers. Setting U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Pharmacy Benefits Management National Academic Detailing Service. Practice description Academic detailing is a multifaceted, educational outreach intervention that services providers through interactions with academic detailers (at the VA, these are specially trained clinical pharmacy specialists) using evidence-based research, educational brochures, and clinical dashboards to align prescribing behavior with best practices. The VA ADS developed clinical dashboards to benchmark and monitor academic detailing activities and performance and to identify opportunities for redistributing resources. We used the opioid crisis as an example to highlight key steps in the development of a clinical dashboard. Evaluation Testing is an important part of clinical dashboard development. Evaluations of the users perceptions contributed to lessons learned. Results Data validation, missing data, data availability, standardization, user engagement, and technical limitations were among several challenges the VA ADS encountered during dashboard development. Stakeholder engagement, communication, and flexibility with development time allowed us to develop efficient dashboards. Conclusions Health care data and health analytics have transformed the type of clinical care that can be practiced by creating the ability to implement system-wide processes for both population management and quality improvement processes. End users of these VA ADS clinical dashboards can generate priority panel reports and data visualization of key performance indicators to identify areas for improvement or action.

Background We report VA-wide trends over time in acute respiratory infection (ARI) antibiotic prescribing, and early assessment of an intervention to improve ARI management. Methods We created a retrospective cohort of ARI (sinusitis, pharyngitis, bronchitis, and URI-NOS) visits between 2009 and April 2018. Patients with complicating conditions were excluded. Antibiotic prescribing rates were calculated. A provider-directed VA-wide ARI campaign was initiated in October 2017. The Campaign was implemented locally by antibiotic stewards or regional personnel trained in academic detailing (AD). Campaign components: dashboards for tracking provider and facility prescribing metrics, printable feedback reports, and AD educational materials. Metrics include: ARI antibiotic prescribing rates, bronchitis/URI-NOS antibiotic prescribing rates, guideline-concordant antibiotic selection for sinusitis or pharyngitis, and proportion of ARI visits with a sinusitis diagnosis. A Logistic generalized estimating equation model assessed metrics over time pre-/postintervention and χ2 tests compared guideline concordant antibiotic proportions pre-/postintervention. Results There were 1,580,612 and 137,421 ARI visits pre-/postintervention, respectively. Antibiotic prescribing decreased from 2009, annual odds ratio (OR) 0.94 [95% CI 0.93, 0.96; P < 0.001]. An additional effect was observed postintervention [OR 0.88, (0.84, 0.88), P < 0.001]. Bronchitis/URI-NOS prescribing rates decreased from 2009 [annual OR 0.94 (CI 0.93, 0.95), P < 0.001]. Additional effect was observed postintervention [OR 0.86, (0.81, 0.91), P < 0.001]. Overall, the proportion of ARI visits diagnosed with sinusitis increased [annual OR 1.09 (1.08, 1.10), P < 0.01], but the proportion of sinusitis diagnoses decreased [OR 0.72 (0.69, 0.75), P < 0.001] postintervention. Guideline-concordant antibiotic selection was 61.5% vs. 71.2% for sinusitis and 63.3% vs. 67.8% for pharyngitis pre-/postintervention, respectively (both P < 0.001). Conclusion Antibiotic prescribing rates for ARIs within the VA have steadily declined since 2010. Additional decline in antibiotic prescribing was associated with the launch of a national campaign to improve ARI management. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

SummaryWhat is known and Objective To summarize available literature regarding the potential role of linezolid, daptomycin, telavancin, tigecycline and ceftaroline for the treatment of osteomyelitis caused by resistant gram-positive organisms. Methods Literature was obtained through PubMed searches from January 1980 to October 2011 using the terms osteomyelitis, bone, linezolid, daptomycin, telavancin, tigecycline and ceftaroline. Results were limited to those published in English. All articles identified from the PubMed searches were evaluated. Any published data related to bone penetration (animal or human) or clinical outcomes in adult osteomyelitis of these agents were included in the review. Results and Discussion Animal models report bone concentrations of 2·3 mcg/dL (vertebral) for linezolid, 0·45 mcg/mL (tibiae) for daptomycin, 0·78 mcg/mL (tibiae) for tigecycline and 0·27 mcg/mL (tibiae) for telavancin; no data are available for ceftaroline. Human studies demonstrate bone concentrations of 4·6, 17·0 and 3·9 mcg/mL (sternal, metatarsal and cancellous bone respectively) for linezolid, 4·7 mcg/mL (metatarsal) for daptomycin and 0·078 mcg/mL (unspecified) for tigecycline; no data are available for telavancin and ceftaroline. Retrospective cohort data, and prospective/retrospective case series support the use of linezolid in this setting; however, side-effects may limit use. Retrospective and prospective cohort data support daptomycin use. A retrospective case series is available supporting the use of telavancin. No data are available supporting clinical effectiveness for ceftaroline or tigecycline in the setting of osteomyelitis. What is New and Conclusion Limited data are available evaluating the safety and efficacy of these agents in osteomyelitis in adults. Daptomycin and telavancin may be potential alternatives or second-line agents to vancomycin in selected patients. Linezolid, because of an increase in clinically important ADRs with prolonged use, should be reserved as a second- or third-line agent. Due to a lack of clinical data and poor bone penetration, along with concerns regarding outcomes in severe infections, tigecycline's potential is limited. Little data exist regarding ceftaroline use in osteomyelitis.

Background Active 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. Methods An 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. Results From 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. Conclusions This 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.