Evidence Hub

Informing antimicrobial stewardship: factors associated with inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing in primary care

Alexander G. Singer, Sergio T. Fanella, Leanne Kosowan, Jamie Falk, Brenden Dufault, Kevin Hamilton, Ashley N Walus

Family Practice, 2017

2,168 participants · 29 citations

Abstract

Background: Antimicrobial stewardship (AS) programs promote the optimal use of antimicrobials and safe patient care. With most antimicrobials prescribed in the ambulatory setting, establishing benchmark data is imperative to gauge the impact of future AS initiatives. Objectives: To determine the frequency of potentially inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing in primary care practices in Manitoba, Canada and to assess the association between potentially inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing and patient, prescriber and practice-related factors. Methods: A retrospective cohort study using the Manitoba Primary Care Research Network repository of de-identified Electronic Medical Records from consenting primary care practices. Descriptive statistics and logistic regressions detailed patients with bacterial or viral infections of interest and antimicrobial prescriptions. Results: Eighteen percent (n = 35 574) of primary care visits for common infections were associated with a potentially inappropriate antimicrobial prescription. Among antimicrobials prescribed to patients diagnosed with bacterial infections, 37.8% (n = 2168) had a potentially inappropriate antimicrobial prescribed and 19.6% (n = 1126) had an antimicrobial prescribed for a duration outside of guideline-based ranges. Female patients, younger age and less office visits were associated with potentially inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing for bacterial infections. Among physician visits for viral infection, 15.9%…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 2,168 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free