FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4286264546> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4286264546 endingPage "1409" @default.
• W4286264546 startingPage "1408" @default.
• W4286264546 abstract "In this issue of The Lancet Infectious Diseases, Gaud Catho and colleagues1Catho G Sauser J Coray V et al.Impact of interactive computerised decision support for hospital antibiotic use (COMPASS): an open-label, cluster-randomised trial in three Swiss hospitals.Lancet Infect Dis. 2022; (published online July 20.)https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00308-5Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar reported a cluster-randomised trial in 24 wards of three Swiss hospitals to measure the effect of a computerised decision-support system (CDSS) integrated with a computerised physician-order entry (CPOE) system on improving prescribing and reducing hospital antibiotic use before the COVID-19 pandemic. This trial provides an in-depth examination of the feasibility and generalisability of such a programme in a real-world setting. The in-house CDSS was carried out with attractive dynamic indicators. The randomisation procedure was adequate, and stratified by unit type. There is a long history of using electronic tools in Geneva alongside antimicrobial stewardship activities. Indeed, the hospital had been implementing electronic health records since the 1970s, with the current version established nearly 20 years before the CDSS intervention was deployed. At the start of the study, the CPOE and the antimicrobial stewardship programme had been in place for 13 years. This might have diminished the effect of CDSS as an additional layer to an existing, comprehensive, and well implemented system. Thus, the data from the Lugano and Bellinzona hospitals, which were naive sites, are interesting because they provide external validation to the trial. The confidence in data is also high because the authors did a random selection and qualitative review of about 10% of the medical records of the two groups of patients who received at least one dose of antibiotic. There was also a low level of intercluster contamination (about 10%). The uptake of intervention was moderate, with nearly a quarter of patients who received antimicrobial therapy did not receive the intervention of CDSS when they were eligible. The trial shows that in a setting with extensive experience of electronic tools and well established antimicrobial stewardship programme, the addition of a CDSS for (empirical) antibiotic prescribing does not reduce overall antibiotic use, perhaps because of poor adherence to the features of the support system, its ergonomics, or its recommendations; although, based on chart review, more patients in units that received the intervention were switched to oral therapy. This is an important and contrasting finding, as CDSS have been used successfully to increase adherence to guidelines in hospital cohorts evaluating their effect in treating urinary-tract infections and in patients who are critically ill.2Demonchy E Dufour J-C Gaudart J et al.Impact of a computerized decision support system on compliance with guidelines on antibiotics prescribed for urinary tract infections in emergency departments: a multicentre prospective before-and-after controlled interventional study.J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014; 69: 2857-2863Crossref PubMed Scopus (45) Google Scholar, 3Nachtigall I Tafelski S Deja M et al.Long-term effect of computer-assisted decision support for antibiotic treatment in critically ill patients: a prospective ‘before/after' cohort study.BMJ Open. 2014; 4e005370Crossref PubMed Scopus (44) Google Scholar The CDSS also improved appropriateness of empirical antibiotic treatment in a multicountry cluster-randomised trial in patients with suspected bacterial infections.4Paul M Andreassen S Tacconelli E et al.Improving empirical antibiotic treatment using TREAT, a computerized decision support system: cluster randomized trial.J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006; 58: 1238-1245Crossref PubMed Scopus (150) Google Scholar This trial4Paul M Andreassen S Tacconelli E et al.Improving empirical antibiotic treatment using TREAT, a computerized decision support system: cluster randomized trial.J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006; 58: 1238-1245Crossref PubMed Scopus (150) Google Scholar was done in 2004, before the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America recommended in 2016 that CDSSs be integrated at the point of care,5Barlam TF Cosgrove SE Abbo LM et al.Implementing an antibiotic stewardship program: guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.Clin Infect Dis. 2016; 62: e51-e77Crossref PubMed Scopus (1521) Google Scholar and before the massive deployment of antimicrobial stewardship policies. The trial4Paul M Andreassen S Tacconelli E et al.Improving empirical antibiotic treatment using TREAT, a computerized decision support system: cluster randomized trial.J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006; 58: 1238-1245Crossref PubMed Scopus (150) Google Scholar is also the only randomised trial to have been included in the systematic review with meta-analysis done in 2017 by Davey and colleagues,6Davey P Marwick CA Scott CL et al.Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; 2CD003543Crossref PubMed Scopus (294) Google Scholar which showed that antimicrobial stewardship interventions consistently improved compliance with recommendations and reduced the duration of antibiotic treatment. It is therefore important to have a recent randomised trial to assess the value of this technology, almost 20 years later, because it is unlikely to overstate the benefit of the CDSS in an obviously different context. Despite integration into the workflow through CPOE, the success of CDSS in this trial might have been limited by a design that was not sufficiently human centred to fully understand and incorporate end-user needs, and how end users interacted with CDSS before its actual implementation.7Rawson TM Moore LSP Hernandez B et al.A systematic review of clinical decision support systems for antimicrobial management: are we failing to investigate these interventions appropriately?.Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017; 23: 524-532Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (92) Google Scholar There is no ideal framework for evaluating CDSS or antimicrobial stewardship programmes. Cluster randomisation, including stepped-wedge designs, is favoured because it allows causal inference. However, these designs are logistically and analytically complex, costly, and potentially subject to numerous biases.8Hemming K Taljaard M Weijer C Forbes AB Use of multiple period, cluster randomised, crossover trial designs for comparative effectiveness research.BMJ. 2020; 371m3800PubMed Google Scholar As cluster size increases, these trials have diminishing returns in power and precision, and to increase trial efficiency, the number and size of the cluster should be determined simultaneously, not independently. Because of the absence of allocation concealment, contamination can occur, and the effect of the intervention is likely to be influenced by the amount of adoption of the intervention at the cluster level. In addition, CDSS are, in essence, multimodal interventions, and the process of selecting the parameters that should be measured and retrievable from the system for each component of the intervention is essential to ensure a fine-grained evaluation of the trial results. In the near future, it might be worthwhile to use alternative causal-inference methods to evaluate interventions that have already diffused, to avoid the use of interrupted time-series designs, and to overcome the classic pitfalls of the cluster randomisation framework. To that end, real-world data at the individual level could be used to emulate target trials to produce real-world evidence.9Hernán MA Robins JM Using big data to emulate a target trial when a randomized trial is not available.Am J Epidemiol. 2016; 183: 758-764Crossref PubMed Scopus (706) Google Scholar Future improvements of CDSSs in the hospital setting will come from integrating individual level laboratory and microbiological data, and possibly personal medical history through electronic health records, to personalise CDSS-derived recommendations in complex cases of infection. However, two challenges remain for integrating and evaluating CDSS to improve antimicrobial prescribing. First, paediatrics, and in particular neonatal sepsis, for which extrapolation of results from studies done in adults is not possible, and for which many broad-spectrum antibiotics are used off label.10Versporten A Bielicki J Drapier N Sharland M Goossens H ARPEC project groupThe Worldwide Antibiotic Resistance and Prescribing in European Children (ARPEC) point prevalence survey: developing hospital-quality indicators of antibiotic prescribing for children.J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016; 71: 1106-1117Crossref PubMed Scopus (174) Google Scholar Second, primary care, including nursing homes, which accounts for the bulk of antimicrobial prescribing, and for which even a small effect could prevent a substantial number of antimicrobial exposures, but for which implementation of the interventions is complex.7Rawson TM Moore LSP Hernandez B et al.A systematic review of clinical decision support systems for antimicrobial management: are we failing to investigate these interventions appropriately?.Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017; 23: 524-532Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (92) Google Scholar, 11Delory T Jeanmougin P Lariven S et al.A computerized decision support system (CDSS) for antibiotic prescription in primary care-Antibioclic: implementation, adoption and sustainable use in the era of extended antimicrobial resistance.J Antimicrob Chemother. 2020; 75: 2353-2362PubMed Google Scholar I declare no competing interests. Impact of interactive computerised decision support for hospital antibiotic use (COMPASS): an open-label, cluster-randomised trial in three Swiss hospitalsAn integrated multimodal computerised antibiotic stewardship intervention did not significantly reduce overall antibiotic use, the primary outcome of the study. Contributing factors were probably insufficient uptake, a setting with relatively low antibiotic use at baseline, and delays between ward admission and first CDSS use. Full-Text PDF" @default.
• W4286264546 created "2022-07-21" @default.
• W4286264546 creator A5089683750 @default.
• W4286264546 date "2022-10-01" @default.
• W4286264546 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W4286264546 title "Time to evaluate decision support systems for antimicrobial prescribing outside the hospital" @default.
• W4286264546 cites W2102908383 @default.
• W4286264546 cites W2103672029 @default.
• W4286264546 cites W2112456722 @default.
• W4286264546 cites W2227678480 @default.
• W4286264546 cites W2298338128 @default.
• W4286264546 cites W2337544276 @default.
• W4286264546 cites W2593880123 @default.
• W4286264546 cites W4286264110 @default.
• W4286264546 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(22)00356-5" @default.
• W4286264546 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35870479" @default.
• W4286264546 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4286264546 type Work @default.
• W4286264546 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W4286264546 countsByYear W42862645462023 @default.
• W4286264546 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4286264546 hasAuthorship W4286264546A5089683750 @default.
• W4286264546 hasBestOaLocation W42862645461 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConcept C107327155 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConcept C124101348 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConcept C2776040555 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConcept C4937899 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConcept C501593827 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConcept C63527458 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConcept C89423630 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConcept C94665300 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConceptScore W4286264546C107327155 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConceptScore W4286264546C124101348 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConceptScore W4286264546C177713679 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConceptScore W4286264546C2776040555 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConceptScore W4286264546C2779473830 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConceptScore W4286264546C41008148 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConceptScore W4286264546C4937899 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConceptScore W4286264546C501593827 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConceptScore W4286264546C55493867 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConceptScore W4286264546C63527458 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConceptScore W4286264546C71924100 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConceptScore W4286264546C86803240 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConceptScore W4286264546C89423630 @default.
• W4286264546 hasConceptScore W4286264546C94665300 @default.
• W4286264546 hasIssue "10" @default.
• W4286264546 hasLocation W42862645461 @default.
• W4286264546 hasLocation W42862645462 @default.
• W4286264546 hasLocation W42862645463 @default.
• W4286264546 hasOpenAccess W4286264546 @default.
• W4286264546 hasPrimaryLocation W42862645461 @default.
• W4286264546 hasRelatedWork W1998378687 @default.
• W4286264546 hasRelatedWork W2142324439 @default.
• W4286264546 hasRelatedWork W2328240131 @default.
• W4286264546 hasRelatedWork W2557287517 @default.
• W4286264546 hasRelatedWork W2771600985 @default.
• W4286264546 hasRelatedWork W2783777147 @default.
• W4286264546 hasRelatedWork W2887402091 @default.
• W4286264546 hasRelatedWork W2905689239 @default.
• W4286264546 hasRelatedWork W3014366194 @default.
• W4286264546 hasRelatedWork W4231625463 @default.
• W4286264546 hasVolume "22" @default.
• W4286264546 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4286264546 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4286264546 workType "article" @default.