OBJECTIVE: Many hospitals utilize antimicrobial management teams (AMTs) to improve patient care. However, most function with minimal computer support. We evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a computerized clinical decision support system for the management of antimicrobial utilization. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial in adult inpatients between May 10 and August 3, 2004. Antimicrobial utilization was managed by an existing AMT using the system in the intervention arm and without the system in the control arm. The system was developed to alert the AMT of potentially inadequate antimicrobial therapy. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes assessed were hospital antimicrobial expenditures, mortality, length of hospitalization, and time spent managing antimicrobial utilization. RESULTS: The AMT intervened on 359 (16%) of 2,237 patients in the intervention arm and 180 (8%) of 2,270 in the control arm, while spending approximately one hour less each day on the intervention arm. Hospital antimicrobial expenditures were $285,812 in the intervention arm and $370,006 in the control arm, for a savings of $84,194 (23%), or $37.64 per patient. No significant difference was observed in mortality (3.26% vs. 2.95%, p = 0.55) or length of hospitalization (3.84 vs. 3.99 days, p = 0.38). CONCLUSION: Use of the system facilitated the management of antimicrobial utilization by allowing the AMT to intervene on more patients receiving inadequate antimicrobial therapy and to achieve substantial time and cost savings for the hospital. This is the first study that demonstrates in a patient-randomized controlled trial that computerized clinical decision support systems can improve existing antimicrobial management programs.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Many hospitals utilize antimicrobial management teams (AMTs) to improve patient care. However, most function with minimal computer support. We evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a computerized clinical decision support system for the management of antimicrobial utilization. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial in adult inpatients between May 10 and August 3, 2004. Antimicrobial utilization was managed by an existing AMT using the system in the intervention arm and without the system in the control arm. The system was developed to alert the AMT of potentially inadequate antimicrobial therapy. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes assessed were hospital antimicrobial expenditures, mortality, length of hospitalization, and time spent managing antimicrobial utilization. RESULTS: The AMT intervened on 359 (16%) of 2,237 patients in the intervention arm and 180 (8%) of 2,270 in the control arm, while spending approximately one hour less each day on the intervention arm. Hospital antimicrobial expenditures were $285,812 in the intervention arm and $370,006 in the control arm, for a savings of $84,194 (23%), or $37.64 per patient. No significant difference was observed in mortality (3.26% vs. 2.95%, p = 0.55) or length of hospitalization (3.84 vs. 3.99 days, p = 0.38). CONCLUSION: Use of the system facilitated the management of antimicrobial utilization by allowing the AMT to intervene on more patients receiving inadequate antimicrobial therapy and to achieve substantial time and cost savings for the hospital. This is the first study that demonstrates in a patient-randomized controlled trial that computerized clinical decision support systems can improve existing antimicrobial management programs.
Authors: Tara Bridget Giblin; Ronda L Sinkowitz-Cochran; Patricia L Harris; Sharon Jacobs; Kathy Liberatore; Marsha A Palfreyman; Edward I Harrison; Denise M Cardo Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2004 Aug 9-23
Authors: Amit X Garg; Neill K J Adhikari; Heather McDonald; M Patricia Rosas-Arellano; P J Devereaux; Joseph Beyene; Justina Sam; R Brian Haynes Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-03-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: R S Evans; S L Pestotnik; D C Classen; T P Clemmer; L K Weaver; J F Orme; J F Lloyd; J P Burke Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-01-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robert C Glowacki; David N Schwartz; Gail S Itokazu; Mary F Wisniewski; Piotr Kieszkowski; Robert A Weinstein Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2003-06-23 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Daria O'Reilly; Jean-Eric Tarride; Ron Goeree; Cynthia Lokker; K Ann McKibbon Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-10-07 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Sara C Keller; Leonard Feldman; Janessa Smith; Amit Pahwa; Sara E Cosgrove; Natasha Chida Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Arnaud Belard; Timothy Buchman; Jonathan Forsberg; Benjamin K Potter; Christopher J Dente; Allan Kirk; Eric Elster Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Lorenzo Moja; Koren H Kwag; Theodore Lytras; Lorenzo Bertizzolo; Linn Brandt; Valentina Pecoraro; Giulio Rigon; Alberto Vaona; Francesca Ruggiero; Massimo Mangia; Alfonso Iorio; Ilkka Kunnamo; Stefanos Bonovas Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 9.308