It is unknown how well menu labelling schemes that enforce the display of kilojoule (kJ) labelling at point-of-sale have been implemented on online food delivery (OFD) services in Australia. This study aimed to examine the prevalence of kJ labelling on the online menus of large food outlets with more than twenty locations in the state or fifty locations nationally. A secondary aim was to evaluate the nutritional quality of menu items on OFD from mid-sized outlets that have fewer locations than what is specified in the current scheme.

Cross-sectional analysis. Prevalence of kJ labelling by large food outlets on OFD from August to September 2022 was examined. Proportion of discretionary (‘junk food’) items on menus from mid-sized outlets was assessed.

Forty-three unique large food outlets on company (e.g. MyMacca’s) and third party OFD (Uber Eats, Menulog, Deliveroo) within Sydney, Australia. Ninety-two mid-sized food outlets were analysed.

N/A.

On company OFD apps, 35 % (7/23) had complete kJ labelling for each menu item. In comparison, only 4·8 % (2/42), 5·3 % (2/38) and 3·6 % (1/28) of large outlets on Uber Eats, Menulog and Deliveroo had complete kJ labelling at all locations, respectively. Over three-quarters, 76·3 % (345/452) of menu items from mid-sized outlets were classified as discretionary.

Kilojoule labelling was absent or incomplete on a high proportion of online menus. Mid-sized outlets have abundant discretionary choices and yet escape criteria for mandatory menu labelling laws. Our findings show the need to further monitor the implementation of nutrition policies on OFD.

To understand barriers and facilitators to evidence-based prescribing of antibiotics in the outpatient dental setting.

Semistructured interviews.

Outpatient dental setting.

Dentists from 40 Veterans’ Health Administration (VA) facilities across the United States.

Dentists were identified based on their prescribing patterns and were recruited to participate in a semistructured interview on perceptions toward prescribing. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and double-coded for analysis, with high reliability between coders. We identified general trends using the theoretical domains framework and mapped overarching themes onto the behavior change wheel to identify prospective interventions that improve evidence-based prescribing.

In total, 90 dentists participated in our study. The following barriers and facilitators to evidence-based prescribing emerged as impacts on a dentist’s decision making on prescribing an antibiotic: access to resources, social influence of peers and other care providers, clinical judgment, beliefs about consequences, local features of the clinic setting, and beliefs about capabilities.

Findings from this work reveal the need to increase awareness of up-to-date antibiotic prescribing behaviors in dentistry and may inform the best antimicrobial stewardship interventions to support dentists’ ongoing professional development and improve evidence-based prescribing.

To evaluate opportunities for assessing penicillin allergies among patients presenting to dental clinics.

Retrospective cross-sectional study.

VA dental clinics.

Adult patients with a documented penicillin allergy who received an antibiotic from a dentist between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018, were included.

Chart reviews were completed on random samples of 100 patients who received a noncephalosporin antibiotic and 200 patients who received a cephalosporin. Each allergy was categorized by severity. These categories were used to determine patient eligibility for 3 testing groups based on peer-reviewed algorithms: (1) no testing, (2) skin testing, and (3) oral test-dose challenge. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were used to compare facility and patient demographics first between true penicillin allergy, pseudo penicillin allergy, and missing allergy documentation, and between those who received a cephalosporin and those who did not at the dental visit.

Overall, 19% lacked documentation of the nature of allergic reaction, 53% were eligible for skin testing, 27% were eligible for an oral test-dose challenge, and 1% were contraindicated from testing. Male patients and African American patients were less likely to receive a cephalosporin.

Most penicillin-allergic patients in the VA receiving an antibiotic from a dentist are eligible for penicillin skin testing or an oral penicillin challenge. Further research is needed to understand the role of dentists and dental clinics in assessing penicillin allergies.

To determine prophylaxis appropriateness by Veterans’ Affairs (VA) dentists.

A cross-sectional study of dental visits, 2015–2019.

Antibiotics within 7 days before a visit in the absence of an oral infection were included. Appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis was defined as visits with gingival manipulation and further delineated into narrow and broad definitions based on comorbidities. The primary analysis applied a narrow definition of appropriate prophylaxis: cardiac conditions at the highest risk of an adverse outcome from endocarditis. The secondary analysis included a broader definition: cardiac or immunocompromising condition or tooth extractions and/or implants. Multivariable log-linear Poisson generalized estimating equation regression was used to assess the association between covariates and unnecessary prophylaxis prescriptions.

In total, 358,078 visits were associated with 369,102 antibiotics. The median prescription duration was 7 days (IQR, 7–10); only 6.5% were prescribed for 1 day. With the narrow definition, 15% of prophylaxis prescriptions were appropriate, which increased to 72% with the broader definition. Prophylaxis inconsistent with guidelines increased over time. For the narrow definition, Black (vs White) race, Latine (vs non-Latine) ethnicity, and visits located in the West census region were associated with unnecessary prophylaxis. Variables associated with a lower risk were older age, prosthetic joints, immunocompromising condition, and rural location.

Of every 6 antibiotic prophylaxis prescriptions, 5 were inconsistent with guidelines. Improving prophylaxis appropriateness and shortening duration may have substantial implications for stewardship. Guidelines should state whether antibiotic prophylaxis is indicated for extractions, implants, and immunocompromised patients.

United States dentists prescribe 10% of all outpatient antibiotics. Assessing appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing has been challenging due to a lack of guidelines for oral infections. In 2019, the American Dental Association (ADA) published clinical practice guidelines (CPG) on the management of acute oral infections. Our objective was to describe baseline national antibiotic prescribing for acute oral infections prior to the release of the ADA CPG and to identify patient-level variables associated with an antibiotic prescription.

Cross-sectional analysis.

We performed an analysis of national VA data from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017. We identified cases of acute oral infections using International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes. Antibiotics prescribed by a dentist within ±7 days of a visit were included. Multivariable logistic regression identified patient-level variables associated with an antibiotic prescription.

Of the 470,039 VA dental visits with oral infections coded, 12% of patient visits with irreversible pulpitis, 17% with apical periodontitis, and 28% with acute apical abscess received antibiotics. Although the median days’ supply was 7, prolonged use of antibiotics was frequent (≥8 days, 42%–49%). Patients with high-risk cardiac conditions, prosthetic joints, and endodontic, implant, and oral and maxillofacial surgery dental procedures were more likely to receive antibiotics.

Most treatments of irreversible pulpitis and apical periodontitis cases were concordant with new ADA guidelines. However, in cases where antibiotics were prescribed, prolonged antibiotic courses >7 days were frequent. These findings demonstrate opportunities for the new ADA guidelines to standardize and improve dental prescribing practices.

To characterize postextraction antibiotic prescribing patterns, predictors for antibiotic prescribing and the incidence of and risk factors for postextraction oral infection.

Retrospective analysis of a random sample of veterans who received tooth extractions from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017.

VA dental clinics.

Overall, 69,610 patients met inclusion criteria, of whom 404 were randomly selected for inclusion. Adjunctive antibiotics were prescribed to 154 patients (38.1%).

Patients who received or did not receive an antibiotic were compared for the occurrence of postextraction infection as documented in the electronic health record. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with antibiotic receipt.

There was no difference in the frequency of postextraction oral infection identified among patients who did and did not receive antibiotics (4.5% vs 3.2%; P = .59). Risk factors for postextraction infection could not be identified due to the low frequency of this outcome. Patients who received antibiotics were more likely to have a greater number of teeth extracted (aOR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03–1.18), documentation of acute infection at time of extraction (aOR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.57–5.82), molar extraction (aOR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.10–2.86) and extraction performed by an oral maxillofacial surgeon (aOR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.44–3.58) or specialty dentist (aOR, 5.77; 95% CI, 2.05–16.19).

Infectious complications occurred at a low incidence among veterans undergoing tooth extraction who did and did not receive postextraction antibiotics. These results suggest that antibiotics have a limited role in preventing postprocedural infection; however, future studies are necessary to more clearly define the role of antibiotics for this indication.

Many institutions evaluate applications for local seed funding by recruiting peer reviewers from their own institutional community. Smaller institutions, however, often face difficulty locating qualified local reviewers who are not in conflict with the proposal. As a larger pool of reviewers may be accessed through a cross-institutional collaborative process, nine Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs formed a consortium in 2016 to facilitate reviewer exchanges. Data were collected to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of the consortium.

The CTSA External Reviewer Exchange Consortium (CEREC) has been supported by a custom-built web-based application that facilitates the process and tracks the efficiency and productivity of the exchange.

All nine of the original CEREC members remain actively engaged in the exchange. Between January 2017 and May 2019, CEREC supported the review process for 23 individual calls for proposals. Out of the 412 reviews requested, 368 were received, for a fulfillment ratio of 89.3%. The yield on reviewer invitations has remained consistently high, with approximately one-third of invitations being accepted, and of the reviewers who agreed to provide a review, 88.3% submitted a complete review. Surveys of reviewers and pilot program administrators indicate high satisfaction with the process.

These data indicate that a reviewer exchange consortium is feasible, adds value to participating partners, and is sustainable over time.