Pharmacist-led feedback workshops increase appropriate prescribing of antimicrobials

Objectives To investigate whether and how structured feedback sessions can increase rates of appropriate antimicrobial prescribing by junior doctors.

Methods This was a mixed-methods study, with a conceptual orientation towards complexity and systems thinking. Fourteen junior doctors, in their first year of training, were randomized to intervention (feedback) and 21 to control (routine practice) groups in a single UK teaching hospital. Feedback on their antimicrobial prescribing was given, in writing and via group sessions. Pharmacists assessed the appropriateness of all new antimicrobial prescriptions 2 days per week for 6 months (46 days). The mean normalized prescribing rates of suboptimal to all prescribing were compared between groups using the t-test. Thematic analysis of qualitative interviews with 10 participants investigated whether and how the intervention had impact.

Results Data were collected on 204 prescriptions for 166 patients. For the intervention group, the mean normalized rate of suboptimal to all prescribing was 0.32 ± 0.36; for the control group, it was 0.68 ± 0.36. The normalized rates of suboptimal prescribing were significantly different between the groups (P = 0.0005). The qualitative data showed that individuals' prescribing behaviour was influenced by a complex series of dynamic interactions between individual and social variables, such as interplay between personal knowledge and the expectations of others.

Conclusions The feedback intervention increased appropriate prescribing by acting as a positive stimulus within a complex network of behavioural influences. Prescribing behaviour is adaptive and can be positively influenced by structured feedback. Changing doctors' perceptions of acceptable, typical and best practice could reduce suboptimal antimicrobial prescribing.

Low-Dose Aspirin Use After Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer Does Not Increase Survival: A Case–Control Analysis of a Population-Based Cohort

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Individuals who began taking low-dose aspirin before they were diagnosed with colorectal cancer were reported to have longer survival times than patients who did not take this drug. We investigated survival times of patients who begin taking low-dose aspirin after a diagnosis of colorectal cancer in a large population-based cohort study.

METHODS: We performed a nested case-control analysis using a cohort of 4794 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer from 1998 through 2007, identified from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and confirmed by cancer registries. There were 1559 colorectal cancer-specific deaths, recorded by the Office of National Statistics; these were each matched with up to 5 risk-set controls. Conditional logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), based on practitioner-recorded aspirin usage.

RESULTS: Overall, low-dose aspirin use after a diagnosis of colorectal cancer was not associated with colorectal cancer-specific mortality (adjusted OR = 1.06; 95% CI: 0.92-1.24) or all-cause mortality (adjusted OR = 1.06; 95% CI: 0.94-1.19). A dose-response association was not apparent; for example, low-dose aspirin use for more than 1 year after diagnosis was not associated with colorectal cancer-specific mortality (adjusted OR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.82-1.19). There was also no association between low-dose aspirin usage and colon cancer-specific mortality (adjusted OR = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.83-1.25) or rectal cancer-specific mortality (adjusted OR = 1.10; 95% CI: 0.88-1.38).

CONCLUSIONS: In a large population-based cohort, low-dose aspirin usage after diagnosis of colorectal cancer did not increase survival time.