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.

These operationalized criteria can be used in daily clinical practice. Future use of these criteria in audits and as rules in clinical decision support systems will facilitate the performance and evaluation of iv-oral switch programmes.

ObjectiveA clinical decision support system (CDSS) for empirical antibiotic treatment has the potential to increase appropriate antibiotic use. Before using such a system on a broad scale, it needs to be tailored to the users preferred way of working. We have developed a CDSS for empirical antibiotic treatment in hospitalized adult patients. Here we determined in a usability study if the developed CDSS needed changes.MethodsFour prespecified patient cases, based on real life clinical scenarios, were evaluated by 8 medical residents in the study. The “think-aloud” method was used, and sessions were recorded and analyzed afterwards. Usability was assessed by 3 evaluators using an augmented classification scheme, which combines the User Action Framework with severity rating of the usability problems and the assessment of the potential impact of these problems on the final task outcomes.ResultsIn total 51 usability problems were identified, which could be grouped into 29 different categories. Most (n = 17/29) of the usability problems were cosmetic problems or minor problems. Eighteen (out of 29) of the usability categories could have an ordering error as a result. Classification of the problems showed that some of the problems would get a low priority based on their severity rating, but got a high priority for their impact on the task outcome. This effectively provided information to prioritize system redesign efforts.ConclusionUsability studies improve lay-out and functionality of a CDSS for empirical antibiotic treatment, even after development by a multidisciplinary system.

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.

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.