The development and implementation of a guideline-based clinical decision support system to improve empirical antibiotic prescribing.

BACKGROUND: To describe and evaluate a clinical decision support system (CDSS) for empirical antibiotic therapy using a systematic framework. METHODS: A reporting framework for behavior change intervention implementation was used, which includes several domains: development, evaluation and implementation. Within the development domain a description is given of the engagement of stakeholders, a rationale for how the CDSS may influence antibiotic prescribing and a detailed outline of how the system was developed. Within the evaluation domain a technical validation is performed and the interaction between potential users and the CDSS is analyzed. Within the domain of implementation a description is given on how the CDSS was tested in the real world and the strategies that were used for implementation and adoption of the CDSS. RESULTS: Development: a CDSS was developed, with the involvement of stakeholders, to assist empirical antibiotic prescribing by physicians. EVALUATION: Technical problems were determined during the validation process and corrected in a new CDSS version. A usability study was performed to assess problems in the system-user interaction. IMPLEMENTATION: In 114 patients the antibiotic advice that was generated by the CDSS was followed. For 54 patients the recommendations were not adhered to. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the development and validation of a CDSS for empirical antibiotic therapy and shows the usefulness of the systematic framework for reporting CDSS interventions. In addition it shows that CDSS recommendations are not always adhered to which is associated with incorrect use of the system.

A clinical decision support system algorithm for intravenous to oral antibiotic switch therapy: validity, clinical relevance and usefulness in a three-step evaluation study.

Objectives: To evaluate a clinical decision support system (CDSS) based on consensus-based intravenous to oral switch criteria, which identifies intravenous to oral switch candidates. Methods: A three-step evaluation study of a stand-alone CDSS with electronic health record interoperability was performed at the Erasmus University Medical Centre in the Netherlands. During the first step, we performed a technical validation. During the second step, we determined the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value and positive predictive value in a retrospective cohort of all hospitalized adult patients starting at least one therapeutic antibacterial drug between 1 and 16 May 2013. ICU, paediatric and psychiatric wards were excluded. During the last step the clinical relevance and usefulness was prospectively assessed by reports to infectious disease specialists. An alert was considered clinically relevant if antibiotics could be discontinued or switched to oral therapy at the time of the alert. Results: During the first step, one technical error was found. The second step yielded a positive predictive value of 76.6% and a negative predictive value of 99.1%. The third step showed that alerts were clinically relevant in 53.5% of patients. For 43.4% it had already been decided to discontinue or switch the intravenous antibiotics by the treating physician. In 10.1%, the alert resulted in advice to change antibiotic policy and was considered useful. Conclusions: This prospective cohort study shows that the alerts were clinically relevant in >50% (n = 449) and useful in 10% (n = 85). The CDSS needs to be evaluated in hospitals with varying activity of infectious disease consultancy services as this probably influences usefulness.

Point prevalence of appropriate antimicrobial therapy in a Dutch university hospital.

Antimicrobial stewardship teams have been shown to increase appropriate empirical antibiotic therapy and reduce medical errors and costs in targeted populations, but the effect in non-targeted populations is still unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of inappropriate antibiotic use in a large university hospital and identify areas in which antimicrobial stewardship will be the most effective. In a point prevalence survey we assessed the appropriateness of antibiotic therapy using an electronic surveillance system in combination with a standardized method for duration of therapy, dosage, dosage interval, route of administration, and choice of antibiotic drug. Patients using at least one antibiotic drug were included. Among 996 patients admitted in the surveyed wards, 337 patients (33.8 %) used one or more antibiotic drugs. Two hundred and twenty-one patients (22.2 %) used antibiotic medication therapeutically, with a total of 307 antibiotic prescriptions. Antibiotic therapy was deemed inappropriate in 90 (29.3 %) of these prescribed antibiotics, with an unjustified prescription as the most common reason for an inappropriate prescription. Use of fluoroquinolones and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid and a presumed diagnosis of fever of unknown origin, urinary tract infection, and respiratory tract infection were associated with inappropriate antibiotic therapy. Our study provides insight into the (in)appropriateness of antibiotic prescriptions in a tertiary care center in the Netherlands and identifies areas for improvement. The use of an electronic surveillance system for this point prevalence study is easy and may serve as a baseline measurement for the future effect of antibiotic stewardship.