BACKGROUND: A 2005 report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Centers for Disease Control Surgical Infection Prevention program indicated that only 41% of prophylactic antibacterials were correctly stopped within 24 h of the end of surgery. Electronic order sets have shown promise as a means of integrating guideline information with electronic order entry systems and facilitating safer, more effective care. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to study the effectiveness of a computer-based antibacterial order set on increasing the proportion of patients who have antibacterial wound prophylaxis discontinued in the appropriate time frame. DESIGN: The authors conducted a quasi-experimental interrupted time-series analysis over an 8-month study period with the implementation of a computer-based order system designed to prevent excessive duration of surgical prophylaxis antibacterials. MEASUREMENT: The primary outcome was the proportion of surgeries with antibacterials discontinued in the appropriate time frame. Additionally, we evaluated the percent of surgeries after implementation of the electronic intervention with chart documentation of infection among surgeries where the prescriber indicated the reason for antibacterial therapy was treatment. RESULTS: The computer-based order intervention significantly improved the proportion of surgeries with timely discontinuation of antibacterials from 38.8% to 55.7% (p < 0.001) in the intervention hospital, while the control hospital remained at 56-57% (p = 0.006 for the difference between treated and control hospitals). In surgeries after intervention implementation where a prescriber indicated the reason for antibacterial therapy was treatment, the prevalence of chart documented infection was only 14%. CONCLUSIONS: A computer-based electronic order set intervention increased timely discontinuation of postoperative antibacterials.
BACKGROUND: A 2005 report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Centers for Disease Control Surgical Infection Prevention program indicated that only 41% of prophylactic antibacterials were correctly stopped within 24 h of the end of surgery. Electronic order sets have shown promise as a means of integrating guideline information with electronic order entry systems and facilitating safer, more effective care. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to study the effectiveness of a computer-based antibacterial order set on increasing the proportion of patients who have antibacterial wound prophylaxis discontinued in the appropriate time frame. DESIGN: The authors conducted a quasi-experimental interrupted time-series analysis over an 8-month study period with the implementation of a computer-based order system designed to prevent excessive duration of surgical prophylaxis antibacterials. MEASUREMENT: The primary outcome was the proportion of surgeries with antibacterials discontinued in the appropriate time frame. Additionally, we evaluated the percent of surgeries after implementation of the electronic intervention with chart documentation of infection among surgeries where the prescriber indicated the reason for antibacterial therapy was treatment. RESULTS: The computer-based order intervention significantly improved the proportion of surgeries with timely discontinuation of antibacterials from 38.8% to 55.7% (p < 0.001) in the intervention hospital, while the control hospital remained at 56-57% (p = 0.006 for the difference between treated and control hospitals). In surgeries after intervention implementation where a prescriber indicated the reason for antibacterial therapy was treatment, the prevalence of chart documented infection was only 14%. CONCLUSIONS: A computer-based electronic order set intervention increased timely discontinuation of postoperative antibacterials.
Authors: Dale W Bratzler; Peter M Houck; Chesley Richards; Lynn Steele; E Patchen Dellinger; Donald E Fry; Claudia Wright; Allen Ma; Karina Carr; Lisa Red Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2005-02
Authors: Ross Koppel; Joshua P Metlay; Abigail Cohen; Brian Abaluck; A Russell Localio; Stephen E Kimmel; Brian L Strom Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-03-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: E P Dellinger; P A Gross; T L Barrett; P J Krause; W J Martone; J E McGowan; R L Sweet; R P Wenzel Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 1994-03 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Tyken C Hsieh; Gilad J Kuperman; Tonushree Jaggi; Patricia Hojnowski-Diaz; Julie Fiskio; Deborah H Williams; David W Bates; Tejal K Gandhi Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2004-08-06 Impact factor: 4.497
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
Authors: Melissa T Baysari; Jessica Del Gigante; Maria Moran; Indy Sandaradura; Ling Li; Katrina L Richardson; Anmol Sandhu; Elin C Lehnbom; Johanna I Westbrook; Richard O Day Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2017-09-13 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Michelle Carbonneau; Ejemai Amaize Eboreime; Ashley Hyde; Denise Campbell-Scherer; Peter Faris; Leah Gramlich; Ross T Tsuyuki; Stephen E Congly; Abdel Aziz Shaheen; Matthew Sadler; Marilyn Zeman; Jude Spiers; Juan G Abraldes; Benjamin Sugars; Winnie Sia; Lee Green; Dalia Abdellatif; Jeffrey P Schaefer; Vijeyakumar Selvarajah; Kaleb Marr; David Ryan; Yolande Westra; Neeja Bakshi; Jayant C Varghese; Puneeta Tandon Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-06-18 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Richard H Parrish; Heather Monk Bodenstab; Dustin Carneal; Ryan M Cassity; William E Dager; Sara J Hyland; Jenna K Lovely; Alyssa Pollock; Tracy M Sparkes; Siu-Fun Wong Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-09-24 Impact factor: 4.964