Comparing antibiotic prescribing between clinicians in UK primary care: an analysis in a cohort study of eight different measures of antibiotic prescribing

Background There is a need to reduce antimicrobial uses in humans. Previous studies have found variations in antibiotic (AB) prescribing between practices in primary care. This study assessed variability of AB prescribing between clinicians. Methods Clinical Practice Research Datalink, which collects electronic health records in primary care, was used to select anonymised clinicians providing 500+ consultations during 2012-2017. Eight measures of AB prescribing were assessed, such as overall and incidental AB prescribing, repeat AB courses and extent of risk-based prescribing. Poisson regression models with random effect for clinicians were fitted. Results 6111 clinicians from 466 general practices were included. Considerable variability between individual clinicians was found for most AB measures. For example, the rate of AB prescribing varied between 77.4 and 350.3 per 1000 consultations; percentage of repeat AB courses within 30 days ranged from 13.1% to 34.3%; predicted patient risk of hospital admission for infection-related complications in those prescribed AB ranged from 0.03% to 0.32% (5th and 95th percentiles). The adjusted relative rate between clinicians in rates of AB prescribing was 5.23. Weak correlation coefficients (<0.5) were found between most AB measures. There was considerable variability in case mix seen by clinicians. The largest potential impact to reduce AB prescribing could be around encouraging risk-based prescribing and addressing repeat issues of ABs. Reduction of repeat AB courses to prescribing habit of median clinician would save 21 813 AB prescriptions per 1000 clinicians per year. Conclusions The wide variation seen in all measures of AB prescribing and weak correlation between them suggests that a single AB measure, such as prescribing rate, is not sufficient to underpin the optimisation of AB prescribing

Are insect bites responsible for the rise in summer flucloxacillin prescribing in United Kingdom general practices?

AbstractBackgroundInsect bite inflammation may mimic cellulitis and promote unnecessary antibiotic usage, contributing to antimicrobial resistance in primary care. We wondered how general practice clinicians assess and manage insect bites, diagnose cellulitis, and prescribe antibiotics.MethodThis is a Quality Improvement study in which 10 general practices in England and Wales investigated patients attending for the first time with insect bites between April and September 2021 to their practices. Mode of consultation, presentation, management plan, and reattendance or referral were noted. Total practice flucloxacillin prescribing was compared to that for insect bites.ResultsA combined list size of 161,346 yielded 355 insect bite consultations. Nearly two-thirds were female, ages 3–89 years old, with July as the peak month and a mean weekly incidence of 8 per 100,000. GPs still undertook most consultations; most were phone consultations, with photo support for over half. Over 40% presented between days 1 and 3 and common symptoms were redness, itchness, pain, and heat. Vital sign recording was not common, and only 22% of patients were already taking an antihistamine despite 45% complaining of itch. Antibiotics were prescribed to nearly three-quarters of the patients, mainly orally and mostly as flucloxacillin. Reattendance occurred for 12% and referral to hospital for 2%. Flucloxacillin for insect bites contributed a mean of 5.1% of total practice flucloxacillin prescriptions, with a peak of 10.7% in July.ConclusionsAntibiotics are likely to be overused in our insect bite practice and patients could make more use of antihistamines for itch before consulting