P-1798. Acceptability and Feasibility of Inpatient Group-Level Feedback to Prescribers About Antibiotic Appropriateness for Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Survey Study

Abstract Background Feedback on antibiotic prescribing is less commonly used in inpatient settings than outpatient. Our objective was to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of group-level feedback on antibiotic appropriateness for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in two United States hospitals. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of medicine and pediatrics prescribers who received monthly feedback on antibiotic selection and duration for patients with CAP shared in meetings and by email. The survey was administered from April 2023 to March 2024 and included the validated acceptability of intervention measure (AIM) and feasibility of intervention measure (FIM). Each consists of 4 items scored 1-5 and is reported as a mean total score (5-20), with higher scores indicating greater acceptability and feasibility. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results Of 289 eligible prescribers, 36 (12.5%) completed the survey: 28 (77.8%) physicians and 8 (22.2%) advanced practice providers. Engagement with reports was high: 30/35 (85.7%) looked at the reports, and 22/35 (62.8%) attended meetings discussing the report. The majority (25, 69.4%) liked the feedback reports, while 3 (8.3%) disliked the reports, 4 (11.1%) were unsure and 4 (11.1%) did not recall. The majority (n = 26; 76.5%) trusted the reports accurately captured performance. Thirty-four respondents (94.4%) believed the metrics were clinically meaningful, and the majority found them easy to understand: 34 (94.4%) understood choice, while 36 (100%) understood duration. Twenty respondents (55.6%) believed the reports changed how they prescribed, while 9 (25.0%) were unsure. Sixteen respondents (44.4%) believed the reports changed how their colleagues prescribe, while 17 (47.2%) were unsure. Mean totals (SD; range) for acceptability and feasibility were AIM, 17.2 (3.5; 8-20) and FIM, 17.7 (3.1; 8-20). Conclusion Although the low response rate may limit generalizability, inpatient clinicians perceived that group-level feedback on antibiotic appropriateness for inpatients with CAP was acceptable and feasible to implement. Clinicians who responded to the survey understood the metrics, found them clinically meaningful, and some felt they influenced prescribing. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
Published
2025-01-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofae631.1961
Primary Topic
Antibiotic Use and Resistance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

P-1798. Acceptability and Feasibility of Inpatient Group-Level Feedback to Prescribers About Antibiotic Appropriateness for Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Survey Study

Robert W. Grundmeier, Keith Hamilton, Kathleen Chiotos, Lauren Dutcher et al.
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
Antibiotic Use and Resistance
article

P-1798. Acceptability and Feasibility of Inpatient Group-Level Feedback to Prescribers About Antibiotic Appropriateness for Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Survey Study

Robert W. Grundmeier, Keith Hamilton, Kathleen Chiotos, Lauren Dutcher, Jeffrey S. Gerber, Julia E. Szymczak, Ebbing Lautenbach, Melinda M. Neuhauser
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background Feedback on antibiotic prescribing is less commonly used in inpatient settings than outpatient. Our objective was to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of group-level feedback on antibiotic appropriateness for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in two United States hospitals. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of medicine and pediatrics prescribers who received monthly feedback on antibiotic selection and duration for patients with CAP shared in meetings and by email. The survey was administered from April 2023 to March 2024 and included the validated acceptability of intervention measure (AIM) and feasibility of intervention measure (FIM). Each consists of 4 items scored 1-5 and is reported as a mean total score (5-20), with higher scores indicating greater acceptability and feasibility. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results Of 289 eligible prescribers, 36 (12.5%) completed the survey: 28 (77.8%) physicians and 8 (22.2%) advanced practice providers. Engagement with reports was high: 30/35 (85.7%) looked at the reports, and 22/35 (62.8%) attended meetings discussing the report. The majority (25, 69.4%) liked the feedback reports, while 3 (8.3%) disliked the reports, 4 (11.1%) were unsure and 4 (11.1%) did not recall. The majority (n = 26; 76.5%) trusted the reports accurately captured performance. Thirty-four respondents (94.4%) believed the metrics were clinically meaningful, and the majority found them easy to understand: 34 (94.4%) understood choice, while 36 (100%) understood duration. Twenty respondents (55.6%) believed the reports changed how they prescribed, while 9 (25.0%) were unsure. Sixteen respondents (44.4%) believed the reports changed how their colleagues prescribe, while 17 (47.2%) were unsure. Mean totals (SD; range) for acceptability and feasibility were AIM, 17.2 (3.5; 8-20) and FIM, 17.7 (3.1; 8-20). Conclusion Although the low response rate may limit generalizability, inpatient clinicians perceived that group-level feedback on antibiotic appropriateness for inpatients with CAP was acceptable and feasible to implement. Clinicians who responded to the survey understood the metrics, found them clinically meaningful, and some felt they influenced prescribing. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Open Forum Infectious DiseasesVol. 12(Supplement_1)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US), Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (US), University of Utah (US), University of Pennsylvania (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 98%
Antibiotic Use and Resistance
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.