Dataset Information

A mandatory indication-registration tool in hospital electronic medical records enabling systematic evaluation and benchmarking of the quality of antimicrobial use: a feasibility study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Evaluation of the extent and appropriateness of antimicrobial use is a cornerstone of antibiotic stewardship programs, but it is time-consuming. Documentation of the indication at the moment of prescription might be more time-efficient. We investigated the real-life feasibility of mandatory documentation of the indication for all hospital antibiotic prescriptions for quality evaluation purposes.

Methods

A mandatory prescription-indication format was implemented in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) of three hospitals using EPIC or ChipSoft HIX software. We evaluated the retrieved data of all antibiotics (J01) prescribed as empiric therapy in adult patients with respiratory tract infections (RTI) or urinary tract infections (UTI), from January through December 2017 in Hospital A, June through October 2019 in Hospital B and May 2019 through June 2020 in Hospital C. Endpoints were the accuracy of the data, defined as agreement between selected indication for the prescription and the documented indication in the EMR, as assessed by manually screening a representative sample of eligible patient records in the EMR of the three hospitals, and appropriateness of the prescriptions, defined as the prescriptions being in accordance with the national guidelines.

Results

The datasets of hospitals A, B and C contained 9588, 338 and 5816 empiric antibiotic prescriptions indicated for RTI or UTI, respectively. The selected indication was in accordance with the documented indication in 96.7% (error rate: 10/300), 78.2% (error rate: 53/243), and 86.9% (error rate: 39/298), respectively. A considerable variation in guideline adherence was seen between the hospitals for severe community acquired pneumonia (adherence rate ranged from 35.4 to 53.0%), complicated UTI (40.0-67.1%) and cystitis (5.6-45.3%).

Conclusions

After local validation of the datasets to verify and optimize accuracy of the data, mandatory documentation of the indication for antibiotics enables a reliable and time-efficient method for systematic registration of the extent and appropriateness of empiric antimicrobial use, which might enable benchmarking both in-hospital and between hospitals.

SUBMITTER: van den Broek AK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8254448 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHospital antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes are multidisciplinary initiatives to optimize antimicrobial use. Most hospitals depend on time-consuming manual audits to monitor clinicians' prescribing. But much of the information needed could be sourced from electronic health records (EHRs).ObjectivesTo develop an informatics methodology to analyse characteristics of hospital AMS practice using routine electronic prescribing and laboratory records.MethodsFeasibility study using electronic prescribing, laboratory and clinical coding records from adult patients admitted to six specialities at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK (September 2017-August 2018). The study involved: (i) a review of AMS standards of care; (ii) their translation into concepts measurable from commonly available EHRs; and (iii) a pilot application in an EHR cohort study (n = 61679 admissions).ResultsWe developed data modelling methods to characterize antimicrobial use (antimicrobial therapy episode linkage methods, therapy table, therapy changes). Prescriptions were linked into antimicrobial therapy episodes (mean 2.4 prescriptions/episode; mean length of therapy 5.8 days), enabling several actionable findings. For example, 22% of therapy episodes for low-severity community-acquired pneumonia were congruent with prescribing guidelines, with a tendency to use broader-spectrum antibiotics. Analysis of therapy changes revealed IV to oral therapy switching was delayed by an average 3.6 days (95% CI: 3.4-3.7). Microbial cultures were performed prior to treatment initiation in just 22% of antibacterial prescriptions. The proposed methods enabled fine-grained monitoring of AMS practice down to specialities, wards and individual clinical teams by case mix, enabling more meaningful peer comparison.ConclusionsIt is feasible to use hospital EHRs to construct rapid, meaningful measures of prescribing quality with potential to support quality improvement interventions (audit/feedback to prescribers), engagement with front-line clinicians on optimizing prescribing, and AMS impact evaluation studies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Adverse events in health care entail substantial burdens to health care systems, institutions, and patients. Retrospective trigger tools are often manually applied to detect AEs, although automated approaches using electronic health records may offer real-time adverse event detection, allowing timely corrective interventions. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this systematic review was to describe current study methods and challenges regarding the use of automatic trigger tool-based adverse event detection methods in electronic health records. In addition, we aimed to appraise the applied studies' designs and to synthesize estimates of adverse event prevalence and diagnostic test accuracy of automatic detection methods using manual trigger tool as a reference standard. METHODS:PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were queried. We included observational studies, applying trigger tools in acute care settings, and excluded studies using nonhospital and outpatient settings. Eligible articles were divided into diagnostic test accuracy studies and prevalence studies. We derived the study prevalence and estimates for the positive predictive value. We assessed bias risks and applicability concerns using Quality Assessment tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) for diagnostic test accuracy studies and an in-house developed tool for prevalence studies. RESULTS:A total of 11 studies met all criteria: 2 concerned diagnostic test accuracy and 9 prevalence. We judged several studies to be at high bias risks for their automated detection method, definition of outcomes, and type of statistical analyses. Across all the 11 studies, adverse event prevalence ranged from 0% to 17.9%, with a median of 0.8%. The positive predictive value of all triggers to detect adverse events ranged from 0% to 100% across studies, with a median of 40%. Some triggers had wide ranging positive predictive value values: (1) in 6 studies, hypoglycemia had a positive predictive value ranging from 15.8% to 60%; (2) in 5 studies, naloxone had a positive predictive value ranging from 20% to 91%; (3) in 4 studies, flumazenil had a positive predictive value ranging from 38.9% to 83.3%; and (4) in 4 studies, protamine had a positive predictive value ranging from 0% to 60%. We were unable to determine the adverse event prevalence, positive predictive value, preventability, and severity in 40.4%, 10.5%, 71.1%, and 68.4% of the studies, respectively. These studies did not report the overall number of records analyzed, triggers, or adverse events; or the studies did not conduct the analysis. CONCLUSIONS:We observed broad interstudy variation in reported adverse event prevalence and positive predictive value. The lack of sufficiently described methods led to difficulties regarding interpretation. To improve quality, we see the need for a set of recommendations to endorse optimal use of research designs and adequate reporting of future adverse event detection studies.