Reducing Inappropriate Antibiotics Prescribing

The Role of Online Commentary on Physical Examination Findings

Published in: Patient Education and Counseling, v. 81, no. 1, Oct. 2010, p. 119-125

Posted on RAND.org on December 31, 2009

by John Heritage, Marc N. Elliott, Tanya Stivers, Andrea Richardson, Rita Mangione-Smith

Read More

Access further information on this document at www.sciencedirect.com

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

Objective: This study investigates the relationship of 'online commentary' (contemporaneous physician comments about physical examination [PE] findings) with (i) parent questioning of the treatment recommendation and (ii) inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Methods: A nested cross-sectional study of 522 encounters motivated by upper respiratory symptoms in 27 California pediatric practices (38 pediatricians). Physicians completed a post-visit survey regarding physical examination findings, diagnosis, treatment, and whether they perceived the parent as expecting an antibiotic. Taped encounters were coded for 'problem' online commentary (PE findings discussed as significant or clearly abnormal) and 'no problem' online commentary (PE findings discussed reassuringly as normal or insignificant). Results: Online commentary during the PE occurred in 73% of visits with viral diagnoses (n = 261). Compared to similar cases with 'no problem' online commentary, 'problem' comments were associated with a 13% greater probability of parents questioning a non-antibiotic treatment plan (95% CI 0-26%, p = .05,) and a 27% (95% CI: 2-52%, p < .05) greater probability of an inappropriate antibiotic prescription. Conclusion: With viral illnesses, problematic online comments are associated with more pediatrician-parent conflict over non-antibiotic treatment recommendations. This may increase inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: In viral cases, physicians should consider avoiding the use of problematic online commentary

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.