Improving quality or shifting diagnoses? What happens when antibiotic prescribing is reduced for acute bronchitis?

W J Hueston, K Slott
{"title":"Improving quality or shifting diagnoses? What happens when antibiotic prescribing is reduced for acute bronchitis?","authors":"W J Hueston,&nbsp;K Slott","doi":"10.1001/archfami.9.9.933","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A quality improvement project in an academic practice demonstrated a reduction in antibiotic prescribing for acute bronchitis. However, it was unclear whether this represented a reduction in antibiotic use or whether physicians assigned new diagnoses to the same patients to avoid scrutiny and continue to use antibiotic therapy.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine whether a substantial amount of diagnostic shifting occurred while antibiotic prescribing for acute bronchitis decreased during a 14-month period (from January 1, 1996, to February 28, 1997).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All patient diagnoses of acute bronchitis, acute sinusitis, upper respiratory tract infection, and pneumonia were determined for the 14 months of the acute bronchitis intervention. The relative distribution of patients among these 4 diagnostic categories was compared to determine if the percentage of patients with acute bronchitis decreased while those with acute sinusitis and pneumonia increased during the acute bronchitis intervention.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The percentage of patients with the diagnosis of acute bronchitis remained unchanged during the 14-month period while antibiotic use for this condition decreased from 66% of cases to less than 21% of cases. Instead of the patients being assigned a different diagnosis such as acute sinusitis so that antibiotic prescribing would not be scrutinized, as we hypothesized, the relative number of diagnoses for acute sinusitis compared with acute bronchitis actually declined during the 14 months. No change was noted in the relative frequency of acute bronchitis cases compared with pneumonia cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>During a 14-month period when an intervention was successful at reducing antibiotic use for acute bronchitis, there was no evidence that physicians shifted patients from the diagnosis of acute bronchitis to other diagnoses.</p>","PeriodicalId":8295,"journal":{"name":"Archives of family medicine","volume":"9 9","pages":"933-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of family medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/archfami.9.9.933","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: A quality improvement project in an academic practice demonstrated a reduction in antibiotic prescribing for acute bronchitis. However, it was unclear whether this represented a reduction in antibiotic use or whether physicians assigned new diagnoses to the same patients to avoid scrutiny and continue to use antibiotic therapy.

Objective: To examine whether a substantial amount of diagnostic shifting occurred while antibiotic prescribing for acute bronchitis decreased during a 14-month period (from January 1, 1996, to February 28, 1997).

Methods: All patient diagnoses of acute bronchitis, acute sinusitis, upper respiratory tract infection, and pneumonia were determined for the 14 months of the acute bronchitis intervention. The relative distribution of patients among these 4 diagnostic categories was compared to determine if the percentage of patients with acute bronchitis decreased while those with acute sinusitis and pneumonia increased during the acute bronchitis intervention.

Results: The percentage of patients with the diagnosis of acute bronchitis remained unchanged during the 14-month period while antibiotic use for this condition decreased from 66% of cases to less than 21% of cases. Instead of the patients being assigned a different diagnosis such as acute sinusitis so that antibiotic prescribing would not be scrutinized, as we hypothesized, the relative number of diagnoses for acute sinusitis compared with acute bronchitis actually declined during the 14 months. No change was noted in the relative frequency of acute bronchitis cases compared with pneumonia cases.

Conclusion: During a 14-month period when an intervention was successful at reducing antibiotic use for acute bronchitis, there was no evidence that physicians shifted patients from the diagnosis of acute bronchitis to other diagnoses.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
提高质量还是改变诊断?减少急性支气管炎的抗生素处方会发生什么?
背景:一个学术实践中的质量改进项目证明了急性支气管炎抗生素处方的减少。然而,尚不清楚这是否代表抗生素使用的减少,或者医生是否对相同的患者进行了新的诊断,以避免审查并继续使用抗生素治疗。目的:探讨在14个月期间(1996年1月1日至1997年2月28日),急性支气管炎抗生素处方减少的同时,是否发生了大量的诊断转变。方法:对14个月急性支气管炎干预期间所有诊断为急性支气管炎、急性鼻窦炎、上呼吸道感染和肺炎的患者进行统计。比较这4种诊断类别患者的相对分布,以确定急性支气管炎干预期间,急性支气管炎患者的百分比是否减少,而急性鼻窦炎和肺炎患者的百分比是否增加。结果:在14个月期间,诊断为急性支气管炎的患者百分比保持不变,而抗生素的使用从66%的病例下降到不到21%的病例。而不是给病人分配不同的诊断,如急性鼻窦炎,这样抗生素处方就不会被仔细审查,正如我们假设的那样,在14个月里,与急性支气管炎相比,急性鼻窦炎的相对诊断数量实际上有所下降。与肺炎病例相比,急性支气管炎病例的相对频率没有变化。结论:在14个月的时间里,当一项干预措施成功地减少了急性支气管炎的抗生素使用时,没有证据表明医生将患者从急性支气管炎的诊断转移到其他诊断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Human papillomavirus infection. Walking the line. A Short Collection of Fables for Learning the Fundamental Principles of Family Medicine: Chapter 1. Comprehensiveness, Continuity, Contextualization and Family Clues to early Alzheimer dementia in the outpatient setting. Competing demands from physical problems: effect on initiating and completing depression care over 6 months.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1