OBJECTIVE The optimal approach to auditing outpatient antimicrobial prescribing has not been established. We assessed how different types of electronic data-including prescriptions, patient-visits, and International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes-could inform automated antimicrobial audits. DESIGN Outpatient visits during 2016 were retrospectively reviewed, including chart abstraction, if an antimicrobial was prescribed (cohort 1) or if the visit was associated with an infection-related ICD-10 code (cohort 2). Findings from cohorts 1 and 2 were compared. SETTING Primary care clinics and the emergency department (ED) at the Iowa City Veterans Affairs Medical Center. RESULTS In cohort 1, we reviewed 2,353 antimicrobial prescriptions across 52 providers. ICD-10 codes had limited sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) for validated cases of cystitis and pneumonia (sensitivity, 65.8%, 56.3%, respectively; PPV, 74.4%, 52.5%, respectively). The volume-adjusted antimicrobial prescribing rate was 13.6 per 100 ED visits and 7.5 per 100 primary care visits. In cohort 2, antimicrobials were not indicated in 474 of 851 visits (55.7%). The antimicrobial overtreatment rate was 48.8% for the ED and 59.7% for primary care. At the level of the individual prescriber, there was a positive correlation between a provider's volume-adjusted antimicrobial prescribing rate and the individualized rates of overtreatment in both the ED (r=0.72; P<.01) and the primary care setting (r=0.82; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS In this single-center study, ICD-10 codes had limited sensitivity and PPV for 2 infections that typically require antimicrobials. Electronically extracted data on a provider's rate of volume-adjusted antimicrobial prescribing correlated with the frequency at which unnecessary antimicrobials were prescribed, but this may have been driven by outlier prescribers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;1-7.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 February 2018.
All research outputs
#1,584,641
of 34,376,207 outputs
Outputs from Infection control and hospital epidemiology (Online)
#443
of 6,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,415
of 495,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Infection control and hospital epidemiology (Online)
#12
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,376,207 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,159 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 495,260 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
