A tale of 2 digital hospitals: A qualitative study of antimicrobial stewardship teams.

AIMS: We aim to examine and understand the work processes of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) teams across 2 hospitals that use the same digital intervention, and to identify the barriers and enablers to effective AMS in each setting. METHODS: Employing a contextual inquiry approach informed by the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model, observations and semistructured interviews were conducted with AMS team members (n = 15) in 2 Australian hospitals. Qualitative data analysis was conducted, mapping themes to the SEIPS framework. RESULTS: Both hospitals utilized similar systems, however, they displayed variations in AMS processes, particularly in postprescription review, interdepartmental AMS meetings and the utilization of digital tools. An antimicrobial dashboard was available at both hospitals but was utilized more at the hospital where the AMS team members were involved in the dashboard's development, and there were user champions. At the hospital where the dashboard was utilized less, participants were unaware of key features, and interoperability issues were observed. Establishing strong relationships between the AMS team and prescribers emerged as key to effective AMS at both hospitals. However, organizational and cultural differences were found, with 1 hospital reporting insufficient support from executive leadership, increased prescriber autonomy and resource constraints. CONCLUSION: Organizational and cultural elements, such as executive support, resource allocation and interdepartmental relationships, played a crucial role in achieving AMS goals. System interoperability and user champions further promoted the adoption of digital tools, potentially improving AMS outcomes through increased user engagement and acceptance.

Drug-Drug Interactions and Actual Harm to Hospitalized Patients: A Multicentre Study Examining the Prevalence Pre- and Post-Electronic Medication System Implementation.

INTRODUCTION: Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) have potential to cause patient harm, including lowering therapeutic efficacy. This study aimed to (i) determine the prevalence of potential DDIs (pDDIs); clinically relevant DDIs (cDDIs), that is, DDIs that could lead to patient harm, taking into account a patient's individual clinical profile, drug effects and severity of potential harmful outcome; and subsequent actual harm among hospitalized patients and (ii) examine the impact of transitioning from paper-based medication charts to electronic medication management (eMM) on DDIs and patient harms. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of the control arm of a controlled pre-post study. Patients were randomly selected from three Australian hospitals. Retrospective chart review was conducted before and after the implementation of an eMM system, without accompanying clinical decision support alerts for DDIs. Harm was assessed by an expert panel. RESULTS: Of 1186 patient admissions, 70.1% (n = 831) experienced a pDDI, 42.6% (n = 505) a cDDI and 0.9% (n = 11) an actual harm in hospital. Of 15,860 pDDIs identified, 27.0% (n = 4285) were classified as cDDIs. The median number of pDDIs and cDDIs per 10 drugs were 6 [interquartile range (IQR) 2-13] and 0 (IQR 0-2), respectively. In cases where a cDDI was identified, both drugs were 44% less likely to be co-administered following eMM (adjusted odds ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.46-0.73). CONCLUSION: Although most patients experienced a pDDI during their hospital stay, less than one-third of pDDIs were clinically relevant. The low prevalence of harm identified raises questions about the value of incorporating DDI decision support into systems given the potential negative impacts of DDI alerts.