Investigating the mechanism of impact of the quality premium initiative on antibiotic prescribing in primary care practices in England: a study protocol

Introduction The persistent development and spread of resistance to antibiotics remains an important public health concern in the UK and globally. About 74% of antibiotics prescribed in England in 2016 was in primary care. The Quality Premium (QP) initiative that rewards Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) financially based on the quality of specific health services commissioned is one of the National Health Service (NHS) England interventions to reduce antimicrobial resistance through reduced prescribing. Emerging evidence suggests a reduction in antibiotic prescribing in primary care practices in the UK following QP initiative. This study aims to investigate the mechanism of impact of this high-cost health-system level intervention on antibiotic prescribing in primary care practices in England. Methods and analysis The study will constitute secondary analyses of antibiotic prescribing data for almost all primary care practices in England from the NHS England Antibiotic Quality Premium Monitoring Dashboard and OpenPrescribing covering the period 2013 to 2018. The primary outcome is the number of antibiotic items per Specific Therapeutic group Age-sex Related Prescribing Unit (STAR-PU) prescribed monthly in each practice or CCG. We will first conduct an interrupted time series using Ordinary Least Square regression method to examine whether antibiotic prescribing rate in England has changed over time, and how such changes, if any, are associated with QP implementation. Single and sequential multiple-mediator models using a unified approach for the natural direct and indirect effects will be conducted to investigate the relationship between QP initiative, the potential mediators and antibiotic prescribing rate with adjustment for practice and CCG characteristics. Ethics and dissemination This study will use secondary data that are anonymised and obtained from studies that have either undergone ethical review or generated data from routine collection systems. Multiple channels will be used in disseminating the findings from this study to academic and non-academic audiences. Strengths and Limitations of this study • This study will be the first to evaluate the mechanism of the impact of a financial incentive initiative involving Clinical Commissioning Groups to improve antibiotic prescribing in primary care practices in England. • The investigation of multiple mediators in this study will help to identify the contributions of multiple strategies in translating the effects of QP while unpacking the extent of the effect of specific mediators. • Due to the limited data on practice-level interventions or strategies that might potentially mediate the effect of the QP on antibiotic prescribing, we will not be able to extensively investigate the mechanism of QP impact at the practice level. • Nevertheless, extensive investigations will be conducted at CCG level where the Quality Premium initiative is implemented, and rewards paid out

Is penicillin allergy de-labelling about to find its place in UK antimicrobial stewardship strategy?

Penicillin allergy records are common, often incorrect, limit antibiotic treatment options and associated with patient and health system harm. The large numbers of patients with penicillin allergy records and the paucity of allergists have led researchers to explore non-allergist delivered assessment of penicillin allergy records and removal of those inconsistent with allergy (called de-labelling). A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature concludes non-allergist delivery of penicillin allergy de-labelling to be safe and effective. Several countries outside Europe have endorsed non-allergist de-labelling and produced national guidelines and toolkits for de-labelling, but until recently the UK lacked such guidance. In September 2022 the British Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI) produced their guidelines endorsing non-allergist delivered penicillin allergy de-labelling. These BSACI guidelines, coupled with the ongoing NIHR funded penicillin allergy de-labelling studies, will enable this important patient safety and antimicrobial stewardship intervention to become standard of care for NHS patients

Non-allergist healthcare workers views on delivering a penicillin allergy de-labelling inpatient pathway: identifying the barriers and enablers

Background Non-allergist delivered PADL is supported by UK and World Health Organization guidelines but is not yet routine in UK hospitals. Understanding the views of healthcare workers (HCWs) on managing patients with penA records and exploring perspectives on delivering a PADL inpatient pathway are required to inform the development of non-allergist delivered PADL pathways. Objective To explore the perspectives of non-allergist HCWs working in medical specialties on managing patients with penA records, and to explore the enablers and barriers to embedding PADL as a standard of care for inpatients. Methods Semi-structured interviews with doctors, nurses, pharmacists and medicines optimization pharmacy technicians working in a district general hospital in the UK. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Results The PADL pathway was considered a shared responsibility of the multidisciplinary team, which needed to be structured and supported by a framework. PADL aligns with HCW roles but time to deliver PADL was a barrier. Training for HCWs on the benefits of PADL and delivering PADL for those patients where a penicillin might be beneficial during the current episode of care would both motivate HCWs to deliver PADL. Discussion and conclusion The PADL pathway was acceptable to HCWs and aligned with their roles and current healthcare processes but their capacity to deliver PADL in a time pressured environment was a significant barrier

How did a Quality Premium financial incentive influence antibiotic prescribing in primary care? Views of Clinical Commissioning Group and general practice professionals

Background: The Quality Premium (QP) was introduced for Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England to optimize antibiotic prescribing, but it remains unclear how it was implemented. Objectives: To understand responses to the QP and how it was perceived to influence antibiotic prescribing. Methods: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 22 CCG and 19 general practice professionals. Interviews were analysed thematically. Results: The findings were organized into four categories. (i) Communication: this was perceived as unstructured and infrequent, and CCG professionals were unsure whether they received QP funding. (ii) Implementation: this was influenced by available local resources and competing priorities, with multifaceted and tailored strategies seen as most helpful for engaging general practices. Many antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategies were implemented independently from the QP, motivated by quality improvement. (iii) Mechanisms: the QP raised the priority of AMS nationally and locally, and provided prescribing targets to aim for and benchmark against, but money was not seen as reinvested into AMS. (iv) Impact and sustainability: the QP was perceived as successful, but targets were considered challenging for a minority of CCGs and practices due to contextual factors (e.g. deprivation, understaffing). CCG professionals were concerned with potential discontinuation of the QP and prescribing rates levelling off. Conclusions: CCG and practice professionals expressed positive views of the QP and associated prescribing targets and feedback. The QP helped influence change mainly by raising the priority of AMS and defining change targets rather than providing additional funding. To maximize impact, behavioural mechanisms of financial incentives should be considered pre-implementation

Point-of-care tests for infectious diseases: barriers to implementation across three London teaching hospitals.

Existing Point-of-care tests (POCT) to help identify infection-related causes of illness can complement diagnostic and disposition decisions in children attending emergency departments.(1) Evidence-based clinical algorithms can integrate such POCT to aid in the admission and discharge decision process. Paediatric studies validating these tools are scarce, with very few studies conducted in UK centres.(2-5) POCT can be based on host infection markers (e.g. finger prick tests for C-reactive protein (CRP) to help decide if the patient has a bacterial or viral infection) or pathogen detection tests (e.g. throat/nose swabs to rapidly diagnose viral infections such as RSV or influenza). This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Patient and prescriber views of penicillin-allergy testing and subsequent antibiotic use: a rapid review

About 10% of U.K. patients believe that they are allergic to penicillin and have a "penicillin allergy label" in their primary care health record. However, around 90% of these patients may be mislabelled. Removing incorrect penicillin allergy labels can help to reduce unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotic use. A rapid review was undertaken of papers exploring patient and/or clinician views and experiences of penicillin allergy testing (PAT) services and the influences on antibiotic prescribing behaviour in the context of penicillin allergy. We reviewed English-language publications published up to November 2017. Limited evidence on patients' experiences of PAT highlighted advantages to testing as well as a number of concerns. Clinicians reported uncertainty about referral criteria for PAT. Following PAT and a negative result, a number of clinicians and patients remained reluctant to prescribe and consume penicillins. This appeared to reflect a lack of confidence in the test result and fear of subsequent reactions to penicillins. The findings suggest lack of awareness and knowledge of PAT services by both clinicians and patients. In order to ensure correct penicillin allergy diagnosis, clinicians and patients need to be supported to use PAT services and equipped with the skills to use penicillins appropriately following a negative allergy test result

Reducing demand for antibiotic prescriptions: evidence from an online survey of the general public on the interaction between preferences, beliefs and information, United Kingdom, 2015

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR), a major public health threat, is strongly associated with human antibiotic consumption. Influenza-like illnesses (ILI) account for substantial inappropriate antibiotic use; patient understanding and expectations probably play an important role. Aim: This study aimed to investigate what drives patient expectations of antibiotics for ILI and particularly whether AMR awareness, risk preferences (attitudes to taking risks with health) or time preferences (the extent to which people prioritise good health today over good health in the future) play a role. Methods: In 2015, a representative online panel survey of 2,064 adults in the United Kingdom was asked about antibiotic use and effectiveness for ILI. Explanatory variables in multivariable regression included AMR awareness, risk and time preferences and covariates. Results: The tendency not to prioritise immediate gain over later reward was independently strongly associated with greater awareness that antibiotics are inappropriate for ILI. Independently, believing antibiotics were effective for ILI and low AMR awareness significantly predicted reported antibiotic use. However, 272 (39%) of those with low AMR awareness said that the AMR information we provided would lead them to ask a doctor for antibiotics more often, significantly more than would do so less often, and in contrast to those with high AMR awareness (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Information campaigns to reduce AMR may risk a paradoxical consequence of actually increasing public demand for antibiotics. Public antibiotic stewardship campaigns should be tested on a small scale before wider adoption

Developing a behavioural intervention package to identify and amend incorrect penicillin allergy records in UK general practice and subsequently change antibiotic use

Objectives: To develop a behavioural intervention package to support clinicians and patients to amend incorrect penicillin allergy records in general practice. The intervention aimed to: (1) support clinicians to refer patients for penicillin allergy testing (PAT), (2) support patients to attend for PAT and (3) support clinicians and patients to prescribe or consume penicillin, when indicated, following a negative PAT result. Methods: Theory-based, evidence-based and person-based approaches were used in the intervention development. We used evidence from a rapid review, two qualitative studies, and expert consultations with the clinical research team to identify the intervention ‘guiding principles’ and develop an intervention plan. Barriers and facilitators to the target behaviours were mapped to behaviour change theory in order to describe the proposed mechanisms of change. In the final stage, think-aloud interviews were conducted to optimise intervention materials. Results: The collated evidence showed that the key barriers to referral of patients by clinicians were limited experience of referral and limited knowledge of referral criteria and PAT. Barriers for patients attending PAT were lack of knowledge of the benefits of testing and lack of motivation to get tested. The key barriers to the prescription and consumption of first-line penicillin following a negative test result were patient and clinician beliefs about the accuracy of PAT and whether taking penicillin was safe. Intervention materials were designed and developed to address these barriers. Conclusions: We present a novel behavioural intervention package designed to address the multiple barriers to uptake of PAT in general practice by clinicians and patients. The intervention development details how behaviour change techniques have been incorporated to hypothesise how the intervention is likely to work to help amend incorrect penicillin allergy records. The intervention will go on to be tested in a feasibility trial and randomised controlled trial in England