Implementation and Perceived Effectiveness of Prospective Audit and Feedback and Preauthorization by US Pediatric...

Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) promote optimal antimicrobial use to prevent resistance, improve outcomes, and reduce costs. We explored how pediatric ASPs enact prospective audit and feedback (PAF) and preauthorization and characterized programs' perceptions of how these choices affected attainment of stewardship goals.

We conducted focus groups with US pediatric ASP practitioners, organized by predominant strategy: PAF, preauthorization, or a hybrid. We asked open-ended questions about organization, staffing, and operation of these strategies, as well as rationales for and perceived advantages and disadvantages of these choices. We used applied thematic analysis to analyze transcripts, organizing coded text into themes and categories. We formulated a conceptual model for how the design and performance of PAF and preauthorization affect stewardship goals and stewards' work experiences.

Eighteen physicians and 14 pharmacists from 24 hospitals participated in five focus groups. Stewards described myriad advantages and limitations of PAF and preauthorization that support or detract from stewardship goals. For example, PAF uncovered institutional trends in antibiotic use and fostered relationship building but was time-consuming. Preauthorization efficiently reduced broad-spectrum antimicrobial use, yet offered limited educational opportunities. How these strategies facilitated or impeded appropriate antimicrobial use in turn affected stewards' professional satisfaction, creating a feedback loop that could reinforced positive or negative outcomes.

ASPs reported differing emphasis on and implementation of PAF and preauthorization. Each strategy entailed contrasting benefits and trade-offs for steward satisfaction and perceived efficacy, suggesting that a hybrid approach could enable ASPs to maximize strengths of each to mitigate drawbacks of the other.