Article

Ruling out the need for antibiotics - Are we sending the right message?

Department of Pediatrics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Ángeles, California, United States
Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (Impact Factor: 4.25). 09/2006; 160(9):945-52. DOI: 10.1001/archpedi.160.9.945
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To examine the relationships among physician-parent communication practices, physicians' perceptions of parental expectations for antibiotic treatment, and inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for viral upper respiratory tract infections.
Cross-sectional study of pediatric encounters motivated by cold symptoms between October 1, 2000, and June 30, 2001. Each encounter was videotaped. Physicians completed a postvisit survey that measured whether they perceived the parent as expecting antibiotics. Coded communication variables were merged with survey variables. Multivariate analyses identified key predictors of parent-physician communication practices, physician perceptions of parents' expectations for antibiotics, and inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for viral conditions.
Twenty-seven pediatric practices in Los Angeles, Calif.
Thirty-eight pediatricians and 522 consecutively approached parents of children with cold symptoms.
Physicians' perceptions of parental expectations for antibiotics, inappropriate antibiotic prescribing, and parental questioning of nonantibiotic treatments.
Physicians were 20.2% more likely to perceive parents as expecting antibiotics when they questioned the physician's treatment plan (P = .004; 95% confidence interval, 6.3%-34.0%). When physicians perceived parents as expecting antibiotics, they were 31.7% more likely to inappropriately prescribe them (P<.001; 95% confidence interval, 16.0%-47.3%). Parents were 24.0% more likely to question the treatment plan when the physician ruled out the need for antibiotics (P = .004; 95% confidence interval, 7.7%-40.3%).
Parental questioning of the treatment plan increases physicians' perceptions that antibiotics are expected and thus increases inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Treatment plans that focus on what can be done to make a child feel better, rather than on what is not needed, ie, antibiotics, may decrease inappropriate antibiotic prescribing.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: John Heritage, Jun 17, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
92 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study examined relationships between provider communication practices, antibiotic prescribing, and parent care ratings during pediatric visits for acute respiratory tract infection (ARTI). A cross-sectional study was conducted of 1,285 pediatric visits motivated by ARTI symptoms. Children were seen by 1 of 28 pediatric providers representing 10 practices in Seattle, Washington, between December 2007 and April 2009. Providers completed post-visit surveys reporting on children's presenting symptoms, physical examination findings, assigned diagnoses, and treatments prescribed. Parents completed post-visit surveys reporting on provider communication practices and care ratings for the visit. Multivariate analyses identified key predictors of prescribing antibiotics for ARTI and of parent visit ratings. Suggesting actions parents could take to reduce their child's symptoms (providing positive treatment recommendations) was associated with decreased risk of antibiotic prescribing whether done alone or in combination with negative treatment recommendations (ruling out the need for antibiotics) [adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 0.48; 95% CI, 0.24-0.95; and aRR 0.15; 95% CI, 0.06-0.40, respectively]. Parents receiving combined positive and negative treatment recommendations were more likely to give the highest possible visit rating (aRR 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01-1.34). Combined use of positive and negative treatment recommendations may reduce the risk of antibiotic prescribing for children with viral ARTIs and at the same time improve visit ratings. With the growing threat of antibiotic resistance at the community and individual level, these communication techniques may assist frontline providers in helping to address this pervasive public health problem. © 2015 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.
    The Annals of Family Medicine 05/2015; 13(3):221-7. DOI:10.1370/afm.1785 · 4.57 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Conversation Analysis has come to be the dominant approach to the systematic study of social interaction. Mixed methods studies combining CA with quantitative methods have been utilized since the 1980s to test associations between interaction practices and sociodemographic variables, attitudinal variables, outcomes, and even factors such as the economy. However, any sort of formal coding risks a massive reduction and flattening of complex human behavior to simplistic codes. Thus, a question arises as to whether it is possible to make use of formal coding in a way that remains true to CA principles about the study of social interaction. In this article, I argue that the formal coding of interaction behavior is not necessarily antithetical to conversation analysis. Although formal coding of interaction is frequently a top-down process that is not grounded in CA, interaction coding can be done in ways that do not sacrifice a CA sensibility and that are true to CA principles. In this article I discuss the aspects of CA methods that form a natural basis for formal coding and then go on to contrast non-CA-grounded formal coding with CA-grounded formal coding. Finally, I review some of the limitations of mixed methods CA formal coding studies of interaction. Data are in American and British English.
    Research on Language and Social Interaction 02/2015; 48(1). DOI:10.1080/08351813.2015.993837 · 1.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: In acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) antibiotic overprescribingleads toantimicrobialresistance and underprescribing may cause poor patient outcomes. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate changes in over- and underprescribing of antibiotics after two interventions to optimise antibiotic prescribing in AECOPD in Spain. Methods:In 2008 and 2009 general practitioners (GPs) registered patients in 3-week periods before and after interventions. Two types of intervention were conducted: GPs in the full-intervention group (FIG) were exposed to a multifaceted intervention and given access to C-reactive protein (CRP) rapidtest; partial-intervention group (PIG) was only exposed to the multifaceted intervention. Overprescribing was defined as antibioticgiven to type III* exacerbation (≤ one Anthonisen Criteria); underprescribing was defined as no antibiotic given totype I exacerbation (three Anthonisen Criteria). A multivariate logistic regression model was used,considering antibiotic prescribing as the dependent variable. Results:A total of 210 GPs and 70 GPs were assigned to FIG and PIG, respectively,and 952 AECOPD patients were eligible for main analysis. After adjusting for clustering at GP level and for patient age and sex, we found that GPs in FIG significantly reduced antibiotic overprescribing; Odds ratio (OR) =0.35 (95%CI: 0.18 to 0.68, P-value =0.003) and underprescribing was not significantly increased; OR =0.25 (95%CI: 0.06 to 1.0, P-value =0.075).No statistically significant changes were found in the PIG. Conclusion:Antibiotic overprescribing wasonly reduced when CRP test was available.Simultaneously, underprescribing was not significantly increased, but this could be due to sample size limitations.
    Family Practice 04/2015; DOI:10.1093/fampra/cmv020 · 1.84 Impact Factor