BACKGROUND: Administration of prophylactic antibiotics during surgery is generally performed by the anesthesia providers. Timely antibiotic administration within the optimal time window before incision is critical for prevention of surgical site infections. However, this often becomes a difficult task for the anesthesia team during the busy part of a case when the patient is being anesthetized. METHODS: Starting with the implementation of an anesthesia information management system (AIMS), we designed and implemented several feedback mechanisms to improve compliance of proper antibiotic delivery and documentation. This included generating e-mail feedback of missed documentation, distributing monthly summary reports, and generating real-time electronic alerts with a decision support system. RESULTS: In 20,974 surgical cases for the period, June 2008 to January 2010, the interventions of AIMS install, e-mail feedback, summary reports, and real-time alerts changed antibiotic compliance by -1.5%, 2.3%, 4.9%, and 9.3%, respectively, when compared with the baseline value of 90.0% ± 2.9% when paper anesthesia records were used. Highest antibiotic compliance was achieved when using real-time alerts. With real-time alerts, monthly compliance was >99% for every month between June 2009 and January 2010. CONCLUSIONS: Installation of AIMS itself did not improve antibiotic compliance over that achieved with paper anesthesia records. However, real-time guidance and reminders through electronic messages generated by a computerized decision support system (Smart Anesthesia Messenger, or SAM) significantly improved compliance. With such a system a consistent compliance of >99% was achieved.
BACKGROUND: Administration of prophylactic antibiotics during surgery is generally performed by the anesthesia providers. Timely antibiotic administration within the optimal time window before incision is critical for prevention of surgical site infections. However, this often becomes a difficult task for the anesthesia team during the busy part of a case when the patient is being anesthetized. METHODS: Starting with the implementation of an anesthesia information management system (AIMS), we designed and implemented several feedback mechanisms to improve compliance of proper antibiotic delivery and documentation. This included generating e-mail feedback of missed documentation, distributing monthly summary reports, and generating real-time electronic alerts with a decision support system. RESULTS: In 20,974 surgical cases for the period, June 2008 to January 2010, the interventions of AIMS install, e-mail feedback, summary reports, and real-time alerts changed antibiotic compliance by -1.5%, 2.3%, 4.9%, and 9.3%, respectively, when compared with the baseline value of 90.0% ± 2.9% when paper anesthesia records were used. Highest antibiotic compliance was achieved when using real-time alerts. With real-time alerts, monthly compliance was >99% for every month between June 2009 and January 2010. CONCLUSIONS: Installation of AIMS itself did not improve antibiotic compliance over that achieved with paper anesthesia records. However, real-time guidance and reminders through electronic messages generated by a computerized decision support system (Smart Anesthesia Messenger, or SAM) significantly improved compliance. With such a system a consistent compliance of >99% was achieved.
Authors: Bala G Nair; Katherine Grunzweig; Gene N Peterson; Mayumi Horibe; Moni B Neradilek; Shu-Fang Newman; Gail Van Norman; Howard A Schwid; Wei Hao; Irl B Hirsch; E Patchen Dellinger Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2015-06-12 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Caroline Pinto Thirukumaran; James G Dolan; Patricia Reagan Webster; Robert J Panzer; Bruce Friedman Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2014-06-26 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Deverick J Anderson; Kelly Podgorny; Sandra I Berríos-Torres; Dale W Bratzler; E Patchen Dellinger; Linda Greene; Ann-Christine Nyquist; Lisa Saiman; Deborah S Yokoe; Lisa L Maragakis; Keith S Kaye Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Allan F Simpao; Jonathan M Tan; Arul M Lingappan; Jorge A Gálvez; Sherry E Morgan; Michael A Krall Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: K de With; F Allerberger; S Amann; P Apfalter; H-R Brodt; T Eckmanns; M Fellhauer; H K Geiss; O Janata; R Krause; S Lemmen; E Meyer; H Mittermayer; U Porsche; E Presterl; S Reuter; B Sinha; R Strauß; A Wechsler-Fördös; C Wenisch; W V Kern Journal: Infection Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 3.553