Objective: To investigate differences in the rate of firstline antibiotic prescribing for common pediatric infections in relation to different socioeconomic statuses and the impact of an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) in pediatric urgent-care clinics (PUCs).Design: Quasi-experimental.Setting: Three PUCs within a Midwestern pediatric academic center.Patients and participants: Patients aged >60 days and <18 years with acute otitis media, group A streptococcal pharyngitis, community-acquired pneumonia, urinary tract infection, or skin and soft-tissue infections who received systemic antibiotics between July 2017 and December 2020. We excluded patients who were transferred, admitted, or had a concomitant diagnosis requiring systemic antibiotics.Intervention: We used national guidelines to determine the appropriateness of antibiotic choice in 2 periods: prior to (July 2017–July 2018) and following ASP implementation (August 2018–December 2020). We used multivariable regression analysis to determine the odds ratios of appropriate firstline agent by age, sex, race and ethnicity, language, and insurance type.Results: The study included 34,603 encounters. Prior to ASP implementation in August 2018, female patients, Black non-Hispanic children, those >2 years of age, and those who self-paid had higher odds of receiving recommended firstline antibiotics for all diagnoses compared to male patients, children of other races and ethnicities, other ages, and other insurance types, respectively. Although improvements in prescribing occurred after implementation of our ASP, the difference within the socioeconomic subsets persisted.Conclusions: We observed socioeconomic differences in firstline antibiotic prescribing for common pediatric infections in the PUCs setting despite implementation of an ASP. Antimicrobial stewardship leaders should consider drivers of these differences when developing improvement initiatives.

Objective: Previous studies have reported high rates of inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions in urgent care (UC). Specific prescribing patterns for the most common diagnoses are not known. The aim of the study is to determine the diagnoses for which antibiotics are prescribed in pediatric UC settings. Methods: We recruited pediatric UC providers via email to participate in a national multisite quality improvement study. Participants completed a survey on 10 consecutive encounters in which an antibiotic was given between March and May 2018. Encounters in which only topical antibiotics were prescribed were excluded. We categorized the encounters into 3 previously established tiers to determine appropriateness of antibiotic use. The tiers represent a descending order for antibiotic need based on diagnoses, with the first tier representing diagnoses almost always requiring antibiotics and the third tier representing diagnoses when an antibiotic is almost never required. We reported the diagnoses and frequency of antibiotic prescription within each tier. Results: The 157 providers from 20 institutions submitted a total of 2809 encounters. We excluded 339 encounters in which only topical antibiotics were prescribed. Most diagnoses fell into the tier 2 category (85.81%), with only 9.12% in tier 1 and 5.06% in tier 3. The most common diagnoses reported were acute otitis media (48.96%), pharyngitis (25.09%), and skin and soft tissue infections (7.29%). Conclusions: In this sample of pediatric UC encounters, only 5% of diagnoses receiving antibiotic prescriptions were made up of tier 3 diagnoses, determined to almost never require antibiotics. While viral respiratory infections have been reported to frequently be treated with antibiotics in general UC centers, our study of pediatric UC centers showed that this was infrequent. However, otitis media with effusion and otalgia should be further investigated. With most antibiotic prescriptions being tier 2 diagnoses, pediatric UC providers can use evidence-based prescribing practices, shared decision making, and contingency plans to reduce unnecessary antibiotic exposure.

BACKGROUND Previous studies reveal that ineffective communication contributes to patient-safety events. Structured handoffs improve communication during shift change and transfers from outpatient clinics to emergency departments. We aimed to improve the perceived quality of admission handoffs from a baseline of 22.2% to 50% by the end of the study period through use of a standardized template between urgent care (UC) and inpatient providers. METHODS We used quality improvement methodology to identify key themes (clarity in illness severity, organization, completeness, and pace) that contribute to decreased quality communication. A survey to evaluate the perception of communication and key themes between the groups was administered. During the 15-month quality improvement study at a tertiary pediatric institution, we implemented a handoff tool with visual aids. Givers of information received formal training. Participants received iterative performance feedback. A control chart was used to monitor fidelity to the handoff tool. We used statistical analyses to compare changes in perceived communication between provider types before and after implementation of the handoff tool. RESULTS Both UC and inpatient providers had an increased rate of positive perceptions in the overall quality of communication after 12 months of using the admission handoff tool (22% vs 67.3%; P = .01). Complete fidelity to the admission handoff tool increased over time. There was no change in mean duration of handoff (4 minutes) after implementing the structured handoff. CONCLUSIONS A structured handoff during admission of pediatric patients from an off-site UC to inpatient setting improved the perception of the quality of admission handoff communication.

Background/Objective: Penicillin allergy labels (PALs) contribute to broad-spectrum antibiotic use. Thorough documentation can help prescribers identify and remove unnecessary PALs. We aimed to improve documentation of PALs in three pediatric urgent care (PUC) clinics, using a nurse-initiated quality improvement (QI) approach. Methods: QI interventions included a survey to assess prescriber and nurse confidence, an online educational module, and an algorithm to aid in clarifying PALs. We measured the percentage of PALs with a clarified reaction severity as our primary outcome using annotated control charts. Descriptive and inferential statistics evaluated survey responses between nurses and prescribers. Results: Clarified PAL reaction severity had a sustained upward shift from 58.5% to 63.3% following implementation of our interventions. Of 129 nurses and prescribers, 87 (67.4%) respondents completed the survey. Prescribers and nurses reported feeling knowledgeable about PALs but experienced different challenges to clarifying PAL documentation. Prescribers reported time pressures as a barrier to PAL clarification more often than nurses (IQR [3, 4], p = 0.001). Nurses reported higher confidence in ability to document a PAL compared to prescribers (IQR [3.25, 5], p = 0.010). Respondents requested family education and practice guidance to aid PAL clarification. No consistent differences were noted in PAL documentation by sociodemographic characteristics. Conclusions: The nurse-initiated QI approach demonstrated improved PAL documentation in PUCs. Engaging nurses in antibiotic stewardship initiatives can provide new perspectives and broaden the approach to intervention design and implementation. Future efforts should focus on improving electronic health record and interprofessional workflow processes to build on these improvements.