Implementation of Electronic Clinical Decision Support Tools

2021 ◽  
pp. 000313482110415
Author(s):  
Alvin Yang ◽  
Wayne Kuang ◽  
Angel Guan ◽  
Benjamin K.P. Woo
2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (8) ◽  
pp. 902-908 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brett E. Youngerman ◽  
Hojjat Salmasian ◽  
Eileen J. Carter ◽  
Michael L. Loftus ◽  
Rimma Perotte ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo integrate electronic clinical decision support tools into clinical practice and to evaluate the impact on indwelling urinary catheter (IUC) use and catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs).Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis 4-phase observational study included all inpatients at a multicampus, academic medical center between 2011 and 2015.InterventionsPhase 1 comprised best practices training and standardization of electronic documentation. Phase 2 comprised real-time electronic tracking of IUC duration. In phase 3, a triggered alert reminded clinicians of IUC duration. In phase 4, a new IUC order (1) introduced automated order expiration and (2) required consideration of alternatives and selection of an appropriate indication.ResultsOverall, 2,121 CAUTIs, 179,070 new catheters, 643,055 catheter days, and 2,186 reinsertions occurred in 3·85 million hospitalized patient days during the study period. The CAUTI rate per 10,000 patient days decreased incrementally in each phase from 9·06 in phase 1 to 1·65 in phase 4 (relative risk [RR], 0·182; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0·153–0·216; P<·001). New catheters per 1,000 patient days declined from 53·4 in phase 1 to 39·5 in phase 4 (RR, 0·740; 95% CI, 0·730; P<·001), and catheter days per 1,000 patient days decreased from 194·5 in phase 1 to 140·7 in phase 4 (RR, 0·723; 95% CI, 0·719–0·728; P<·001). The reinsertion rate declined from 3·66% in phase 1 to 3·25% in phase 4 (RR, 0·894; 95% CI, 0·834–0·959; P=·0017).ConclusionsThe phased introduction of decision support tools was associated with progressive declines in new catheters, total catheter days, and CAUTIs. Clinical decision support tools offer a viable and scalable intervention to target hospital-wide IUC use and hold promise for other quality improvement initiatives.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S54-S54
Author(s):  
Vidya Atluri ◽  
Paula Marsland ◽  
Luke M Johnson ◽  
Rupali Jain ◽  
Paul Pottinger ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Patients labeled with penicillin allergies often receive alternative antibiotics, leading to increased cost, higher risk of adverse events, and decreased efficacy of procedural prophylaxis. However, most of those patients can tolerate a cephalosporin. University of Washington Medical Center – Montlake (UWMC-ML) Interventional Radiology (IR) frequently administer a pre-procedure prophylactic cephalosporin. We worked with the clinicians in IR to develop tools to allow them to better assess penicillin allergies, make the most appropriate antibiotic choice, and update the patient’s allergy documentation. Methods We identified all patients who underwent procedures in IR between 2017–2019. Chart review was done to determine the procedures performed, patient demographic information, allergies, allergy documentation, and prophylactic antibiotics received. In May 2020 we implemented new Clinical Decision Support tools, including an online assessment app (https://tinyurl.com/IRPCNAllAssess) and handouts to guide antibiotic decision making to clinicians in IR. Results From 2017 to 2019, 381 patients underwent 958 procedures in IR. Of those, 379 patients underwent 496 procedures for which the recommended first line choice for antibiotic prophylaxis is a cephalosporin. Of patients who received pre-procedure prophylactic antibiotics for those procedures, 15.9% [n=11] of patients with penicillin allergies received the first line antibiotic, compared to 89.9% [n=319] of patients without a reported penicillin allergy. Since implementation, the online app has been used to evaluate 9 patients, of whom 8 had penicillin allergies. All 8 patients safely received the first line antibiotic (3 were delabeled, 4 reported a history of mild reactions, and 1 reported a history of an immediate IgE mediated response to penicillin but safely received cefazolin). Conclusion IR evaluates hundreds of patients who may receive prophylactic antibiotics each year. By providing tools to assess penicillin allergies, we were able to improve both their prescribing and de-label patients which will provide a much broader impact on their care than on just their current procedure. Our free tool can be accessed at the website above, and we will demonstrate in person. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document