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.

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.

Surveillance of hospital-acquired infections can be approximated by repeated surveys that are performed in a standardized, cost-effective manner. We developed an integrated software system for serial electronic hospital-wide point prevalence surveys using algorithms that proved highly sensitive and specific over a 5-year period in a large university medical center.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate a computer-assisted point-prevalence survey (CAPPS) for hospital-acquired infections (HAIs). DESIGN Validation cohort. SETTING A 754-bed teaching hospital in the Netherlands. METHODS For the internal validation of a CAPPS for HAIs, 2,526 patients were included. All patient records were retrospectively reviewed in depth by 2 infection control practitioners (ICPs) to determine which patients had suffered an HAI. Preventie van Ziekenhuisinfecties door Surveillance (PREZIES) criteria were used. Following this internal validation, 13 consecutive CAPPS were performed in a prospective study from January to March 2013 to determine weekly, monthly, and quarterly HAI point prevalence. Finally, a CAPPS was externally validated by PREZIES (Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu [RIVM], Bilthoven, Netherlands). In all evaluations, discrepancies were resolved by consensus. RESULTS In our series of CAPPS, 83% of the patients were automatically excluded from detailed review by the ICP. The sensitivity of the method was 91%. The time spent per hospital-wide CAPPS was ~3 hours. External validation showed a negative predictive value of 99.1% for CAPPS. CONCLUSIONS CAPPS proved to be a sensitive, accurate, and efficient method to determine serial weekly point-prevalence HAI rates in our hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;1-6.

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.