A systematic review of clinical decision support systems for antimicrobial management: are we failing to investigate these interventions appropriately?

OBJECTIVES: Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) for antimicrobial management can support clinicians to optimize antimicrobial therapy. We reviewed all original literature (qualitative and quantitative) to understand the current scope of CDSS for antimicrobial management and analyse existing methods used to evaluate and report such systems. METHOD: PRISMA guidelines were followed. Medline, EMBASE, HMIC Health and Management and Global Health databases were searched from 1 January 1980 to 31 October 2015. All primary research studies describing CDSS for antimicrobial management in adults in primary or secondary care were included. For qualitative studies, thematic synthesis was performed. Quality was assessed using Integrated quality Criteria for the Review Of Multiple Study designs (ICROMS) criteria. CDSS reporting was assessed against a reporting framework for behaviour change intervention implementation. RESULTS: Fifty-eight original articles were included describing 38 independent CDSS. The majority of systems target antimicrobial prescribing (29/38;76%), are platforms integrated with electronic medical records (28/38;74%), and have a rules-based infrastructure providing decision support (29/38;76%). On evaluation against the intervention reporting framework, CDSS studies fail to report consideration of the non-expert, end-user workflow. They have narrow focus, such as antimicrobial selection, and use proxy outcome measures. Engagement with CDSS by clinicians was poor. CONCLUSION: Greater consideration of the factors that drive non-expert decision making must be considered when designing CDSS interventions. Future work must aim to expand CDSS beyond simply selecting appropriate antimicrobials with clear and systematic reporting frameworks for CDSS interventions developed to address current gaps identified in the reporting of evidence.

Advance care planning and the older patient.

Making treatment decisions for older people is difficult, because of the complex interplay of their multiple co-morbidities, but also because of the fine balance of risks vs. benefit in any chosen management plan. This becomes even more difficult when they lose the capacity to tell us what they want, and often in such situations we have to rely on information from others in order to make decisions based on their best interests. Advance care planning should help with making these decisions clearer, based on the documented preferences of what the patient would have wanted while capacity was still present. However, such documents are still very rarely used, and even if they are, health-care professionals are often wary of them for the multitude of ethical and legal problems that can arise.

Abilities of APTIMA, AMPLICOR, and ProbeTec assays to detect Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in PreservCyt ThinPrep Liquid-based Pap samples.

Infections with Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae are often asymptomatic. Liquid-based Pap (L-Pap) screening may provide samples for testing by commercial assays. Women attending a health clinic or a street youth clinic had a PreservCyt ThinPrep sample and a cervical swab (CS) collected. The L-Pap sample was tested for cytopathology; then 1 ml was transferred to an L-Pap specimen transfer tube for testing by the Gen-Probe APTIMA assays (APTIMA Combo 2 [AC2], APTIMA C. trachomatis [ACT], and APTIMA N. gonorrhoeae [AGC]). The residual L-Pap sample was tested for C. trachomatis and N. gonorrhoeae using Roche AMPLICOR (AMP) and Becton Dickinson ProbeTec (PT). The CS was tested by AC2. A patient was considered infected if two specimens were positive or if a single specimen was positive in two tests. The prevalence of infection was 10% (29/290) for C. trachomatis and 2.4% (7/290) for N. gonorrhoeae. Most of the positive patients had specimens that were reactive in all assays (20/29 for C. trachomatis; 6/7 for N. gonorrhoeae). Four patients had double infections. The sensitivities and specificities of the various tests for the specimens tested were as follows. For C. trachomatis on L-Pap, sensitivity and specificity were 100 and 98.1%, respectively, for ACT, 93.1 and 98.8% for AC2, 86.2 and 91.2% for AMP, and 72.4 and 92.7% for PT. For N. gonorrhoeae on L-Pap, sensitivity and specificity were 100% for both AGC and AC2, 85.7 and 100% for AMP, and 85.7 and 100% for PT. For AC2 with CSs, sensitivity and specificity were 93.1 and 98.5%, respectively, for C. trachomatis, and both were 100% for N. gonorrhoeae. There were significant differences in sensitivity and specificity (P < 0.001). The APTIMA assays were more sensitive and specific than AMP or PT for detecting women's C. trachomatis and/or N. gonorrhoeae infections by testing ThinPrep samples.