Antibiotic Prescribing for Respiratory Tract Infections in Urgent Care: A Comparison of In-Person and Virtual Settings.

IF 8.2 1区 医学 Q1 IMMUNOLOGY
Kathryn A Martinez, Abhishek Deshpande, Elizabeth Stanley, Michael B Rothberg
{"title":"Antibiotic Prescribing for Respiratory Tract Infections in Urgent Care: A Comparison of In-Person and Virtual Settings.","authors":"Kathryn A Martinez, Abhishek Deshpande, Elizabeth Stanley, Michael B Rothberg","doi":"10.1093/cid/ciae396","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Little is known about antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in virtual versus in-person urgent care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective study, we used electronic health record data from Cleveland Clinic Health System. We identified RTI patients via International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification, codes and assessed whether the visit resulted in an antibiotic. We described differences in diagnoses and prescribing by setting (virtual versus in-person). We used mixed effects logistic regression to model the odds of antibiotic receipt by urgent care setting. We applied the model first to all physicians and second only to those who saw patients in both settings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 69 189 in-person and 19 003 virtual visits. Fifty-eight percent of virtual visits resulted in an antibiotic compared with 43% of in-person visits. Sinusitis diagnoses were more than twice as common in virtual versus in-person care (36% vs 14%) and were associated with high rates of prescribing in both settings (95% in-person, 91% virtual). Compared with in-person care, virtual urgent care was positively associated with a prescription (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.53-1.75). Among visits conducted by 39 physicians who saw patients in both settings, odds of antibiotic prescription in virtual care were 1.71 times higher than in in-person care (95% CI: 1.53-1.90).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Antibiotic prescriptions were more common in virtual versus in-person urgent care, including among physicians who provided care in both platforms. This appears to be related to the high rate of sinusitis diagnosis in virtual urgent care.</p>","PeriodicalId":10463,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Infectious Diseases","volume":" ","pages":"7-13"},"PeriodicalIF":8.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciae396","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Little is known about antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in virtual versus in-person urgent care.

Methods: In this retrospective study, we used electronic health record data from Cleveland Clinic Health System. We identified RTI patients via International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification, codes and assessed whether the visit resulted in an antibiotic. We described differences in diagnoses and prescribing by setting (virtual versus in-person). We used mixed effects logistic regression to model the odds of antibiotic receipt by urgent care setting. We applied the model first to all physicians and second only to those who saw patients in both settings.

Results: There were 69 189 in-person and 19 003 virtual visits. Fifty-eight percent of virtual visits resulted in an antibiotic compared with 43% of in-person visits. Sinusitis diagnoses were more than twice as common in virtual versus in-person care (36% vs 14%) and were associated with high rates of prescribing in both settings (95% in-person, 91% virtual). Compared with in-person care, virtual urgent care was positively associated with a prescription (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.53-1.75). Among visits conducted by 39 physicians who saw patients in both settings, odds of antibiotic prescription in virtual care were 1.71 times higher than in in-person care (95% CI: 1.53-1.90).

Conclusions: Antibiotic prescriptions were more common in virtual versus in-person urgent care, including among physicians who provided care in both platforms. This appears to be related to the high rate of sinusitis diagnosis in virtual urgent care.

紧急护理中呼吸道感染的抗生素处方:现场与虚拟环境的比较。
背景:在同一医疗系统中,虚拟急诊与现场急诊对呼吸道感染(RTI)的抗生素处方知之甚少:这是一项使用克利夫兰诊所医疗系统电子健康记录数据进行的回顾性研究。我们通过 ICD-10 编码识别了 RTI 患者,并评估了就诊时是否使用了抗生素。我们描述了不同紧急护理类型(虚拟护理与面对面护理)在诊断和处方方面的差异。我们首先将模型应用于所有医生,其次仅应用于在两种情况下都为患者看病的医生:共有 69,189 人次亲自就诊,19,003 人次虚拟就诊。58%的虚拟就诊者使用了抗生素,而亲自就诊者使用抗生素的比例为 43%。鼻窦炎诊断在虚拟就诊中的发生率是现场就诊的两倍多(36% 对 14%),而且两种就诊环境中的处方率都很高(现场就诊为 95%,虚拟就诊为 91%)。与亲诊相比,虚拟急诊与处方呈正相关(OR:1.64,95%CI:1.53-1.75)。在 39 名在两种情况下都为患者看病的医生所进行的就诊中,虚拟医疗的抗生素处方几率是现场医疗的 1.71 倍(95%CI:1.53-1.90):抗生素处方在虚拟紧急护理环境中比在现场护理环境中更常见,包括在两种平台中提供护理的医生。这似乎与虚拟紧急护理中鼻窦炎的诊断率较高有关。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Clinical Infectious Diseases 医学-传染病学
CiteScore
25.00
自引率
2.50%
发文量
900
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Infectious Diseases (CID) is dedicated to publishing original research, reviews, guidelines, and perspectives with the potential to reshape clinical practice, providing clinicians with valuable insights for patient care. CID comprehensively addresses the clinical presentation, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of a wide spectrum of infectious diseases. The journal places a high priority on the assessment of current and innovative treatments, microbiology, immunology, and policies, ensuring relevance to patient care in its commitment to advancing the field of infectious diseases.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信