Effects of a computerized provider order entry and a clinical decision support system to improve cefazolin use in surgical prophylaxis: a cost saving analysis.

BACKGROUND: Computerized Provider Order Entry (CPOE) and Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) help practitioners to choose evidence-based decisions, regarding patients' needs. Despite its use in developed countries, in Brazil, the impact of a CPOE/CDSS to improve cefazolin use in surgical prophylaxis was not assessed yet. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the impact of a CDSS to improve the use of prophylactic cefazolin and to assess the cost savings associated to inappropriate prescribing. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study that compared two different scenarios: one prior CPOE/CDSS versus after software implementation. We conducted twelve years of data analysis (3 years prior and 9 years after CDSS implementation), where main outcomes from this study included: cefazolin Defined Daily Doses/100 bed-days (DDD), crude costs and product of costs-DDD (cost-DDD/100 bed-days). We applied a Spearman rho non-parametric test to assess the reduction of cefazolin consumption through the years. RESULTS: In twelve years, 84,383 vials of cefazolin were dispensed and represented 38.89 DDD/100 bed-days or USD 44,722.99. Surgical wards were the largest drug prescribers and comprised >95% of our studied sample. While in 2002, there were 6.31 DDD/100 bed-days, 9 years later there was a reduction to 2.15 (p<0.05). In a scenario without CDSS, the hospital would have consumed 75.72 DDD/100 bed-days, which is equivalent to USD 116 998.07. It is estimated that CDSS provided USD 50,433.39 of cost savings. CONCLUSION: The implementation of a CPOE/CDSS helped to improve prophylactic cefazolin use by reducing its consumption and estimated direct costs.

Effects of a computerized provider order entry and a clinical decision support system to improve cefazolin use in surgical prophylaxis: a cost saving analysis

Background: Computerized Provider Order Entry (CPOE) and Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) help practitioners to choose evidence-based decisions, regarding patients’ needs. Despite its use in developed countries, in Brazil, the impact of a CPOE/CDSS to improve cefazolin use in surgical prophylaxis was not assessed yet. Objective: We aimed to evaluate the impact of a CDSS to improve the use of prophylactic cefazolin and to assess the cost savings associated to inappropriate prescribing. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study that compared two different scenarios: one prior CPOE/CDSS versus after software implementation. We conducted twelve years of data analysis (3 years prior and 9 years after CDSS implementation), where main outcomes from this study included: cefazolin Defined Daily Doses/100 bed-days (DDD), crude costs and product of costs-DDD (cost-DDD/100 bed-days). We applied a Spearman rho non-parametric test to assess the reduction of cefazolin consumption through the years. Results: In twelve years, 84,383 vials of cefazolin were dispensed and represented 38.89 DDD/100 bed-days or USD 44,722.99. Surgical wards were the largest drug prescribers and comprised >95% of our studied sample. While in 2002, there were 6.31 DDD/100 bed-days, 9 years later there was a reduction to 2.15 (p<0.05). In a scenario without CDSS, the hospital would have consumed 75.72 DDD/100 bed-days, which is equivalent to USD 116 998.07. It is estimated that CDSS provided USD 50,433.39 of cost savings. Conclusion: The implementation of a CPOE/CDSS helped to improve prophylactic cefazolin use by reducing its consumption and estimated direct costs (AU)

No disponible

A cost-effectiveness analysis of two different antimicrobial stewardship programs

Abstract There is a lack of formal economic analysis to assess the efficiency of antimicrobial stewardship programs. Herein, we conducted a cost-effectiveness study to assess two different strategies of Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs. A 30-day Markov model was developed to analyze how cost-effective was a Bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship implemented in a university hospital in Brazil. Clinical data derived from a historical cohort that compared two different strategies of antimicrobial stewardship programs and had 30-day mortality as main outcome. Selected costs included: workload, cost of defined daily doses, length of stay, laboratory and imaging resources used to diagnose infections. Data were analyzed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess model's robustness, tornado diagram and Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curve. Bundled Strategy was more expensive (Cost difference US$ 2119.70), however, it was more efficient (US$ 27,549.15 vs 29,011.46). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that critical variables did not alter final Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio. Bundled Strategy had higher probabilities of being cost-effective, which was endorsed by cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. As health systems claim for efficient technologies, this study conclude that Bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship Program was more cost-effective, which means that stewardship strategies with such characteristics would be of special interest in a societal and clinical perspective.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of two different antimicrobial stewardship programs.

There is a lack of formal economic analysis to assess the efficiency of antimicrobial stewardship programs. Herein, we conducted a cost-effectiveness study to assess two different strategies of Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs. A 30-day Markov model was developed to analyze how cost-effective was a Bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship implemented in a university hospital in Brazil. Clinical data derived from a historical cohort that compared two different strategies of antimicrobial stewardship programs and had 30-day mortality as main outcome. Selected costs included: workload, cost of defined daily doses, length of stay, laboratory and imaging resources used to diagnose infections. Data were analyzed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess model's robustness, tornado diagram and Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curve. Bundled Strategy was more expensive (Cost difference US$ 2119.70), however, it was more efficient (US$ 27,549.15 vs 29,011.46). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that critical variables did not alter final Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio. Bundled Strategy had higher probabilities of being cost-effective, which was endorsed by cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. As health systems claim for efficient technologies, this study conclude that Bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship Program was more cost-effective, which means that stewardship strategies with such characteristics would be of special interest in a societal and clinical perspective.

Effects of a bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship Program on mortality: a cohort study

Objectives: To assess a bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship Program and its effect on mortality. Data: Eight months of clinical electronic medical records and Antimicrobial Stewardship Program registries were used as source of data. Method: This is a historical cohort study conducted in a Brazilian University Hospital. Eligible patients were admitted to general wards or intensive care units and had an antimicrobial therapy prescribed and assessed by different strategies: Bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship Program (bundled intervention consisted of clinical pharmacist chart review, discussion with microbiologist and infectious disease physicians, local education and continuous follow-up) or Conventional Antimicrobial Stewardship Program (clinical pharmacist chart review and discussion with infectious disease physician). Primary outcome from this study was 30-day mortality, which was compared between groups, by using Kaplan-Meier survival curve and log-rank test. Other outcomes included Defined Daily Doses per 1000 patient-days and occurrence of resistant bacteria. Results: From 533 patients, 491 were eligible for the study, of which 191 patients were included to Antimicrobial Stewardship Program and 300 to Conventional strategy. In general, they were likely to be male and age was similar in groups (58.9 vs 55.5 years, p = 0.38). Likewise, Charlson Comorbidity Index was not statistically different between groups (2.6 vs 2.7, p = 0.2). Bloodstream site infections were frequently diagnosed in both groups (30.89% vs 26%, p = 0.24). Other less common sites of infections were central nervous system and lungs. The ASP group had higher survival rates (p < 0.01) and the risk difference was 10.8% (95% CI: 2.41-19.14). There were less Defined Daily Doses per 1000 patient-days (417 vs 557.2, p < 0.05) and higher rates of resistant bacteria identified in the ASP group (83% vs 17%). Conclusion: Bundled ASP was the most effective strategy, with reduced ...

Effects of a bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship Program on mortality: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess a bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship Program and its effect on mortality. DATA: Eight months of clinical electronic medical records and Antimicrobial Stewardship Program registries were used as source of data. METHOD: This is a historical cohort study conducted in a Brazilian University Hospital. Eligible patients were admitted to general wards or intensive care units and had an antimicrobial therapy prescribed and assessed by different strategies: Bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship Program (bundled intervention consisted of clinical pharmacist chart review, discussion with microbiologist and infectious disease physicians, local education and continuous follow-up) or Conventional Antimicrobial Stewardship Program (clinical pharmacist chart review and discussion with infectious disease physician). Primary outcome from this study was 30-day mortality, which was compared between groups, by using Kaplan-Meier survival curve and log-rank test. Other outcomes included Defined Daily Doses per 1000 patient-days and occurrence of resistant bacteria. RESULTS: From 533 patients, 491 were eligible for the study, of which 191 patients were included to Antimicrobial Stewardship Program and 300 to Conventional strategy. In general, they were likely to be male and age was similar in groups (58.9 vs 55.5 years, p=0.38). Likewise, Charlson Comorbidity Index was not statistically different between groups (2.6 vs 2.7, p=0.2). Bloodstream site infections were frequently diagnosed in both groups (30.89% vs 26%, p=0.24). Other less common sites of infections were central nervous system and lungs. The ASP group had higher survival rates (p<0.01) and the risk difference was 10.8% (95% CI: 2.41-19.14). There were less Defined Daily Doses per 1000 patient-days (417 vs 557.2, p<0.05) and higher rates of resistant bacteria identified in the ASP group (83% vs 17%). CONCLUSION: Bundled ASP was the most effective strategy, with reduced mortality and Defined Daily Doses per 1000 patient-days.

Prophylaxis with levofloxacin: impact on bacterial susceptibility and epidemiology in a hematopoietic stem cell transplant unit.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of resistance has been demonstrated in cancer treatment centers where prophylaxis with fluoroquinolone is used. OBJECTIVE: Considering the importance of epidemiological monitoring as a strategy in choosing protocols involving antibiotics, this study aimed to evaluate the emergence of quinolone resistance and changes in the local epidemiology in a hematopoietic stem cell transplant service. METHODS: For this study, 60 positive cultures before the prophylactic use of levofloxacin (period A: 2007-2008) and 118 cultures after starting the use of prophylactic levofloxacin (period B: 2010-2011) were evaluated. RESULTS: Resistance increased for all the different types of bacteria isolated (from 46.0% to 76.5%; p-value = 0.0002). Among Gram-negative bacteria, resistance increased from 21.4% to 60.7% (p-value = 0.0163) and among Gram-positive bacteria, it increased from 55.6% to 82.9% (p-value = 0.0025). The use of levofloxacin increased from 19.44 defined daily doses per 1,000 patient-days in period A to 166.64 in period B. The use of broad spectrum antibiotics remained unchanged. Considering bacteria associated with infection, 72 and 76 were isolated in periods A and B, respectively. There was a reduction in the rate of Gramnegative bacteria in cultures associated with infection (3.81 vs. 2.00 cultures/1,000 patientdays; p-value = 0.008). CONCLUSION: The study of prophylaxis with levofloxacin demonstrated that there was a decrease in infections by Gram-negative bacteria; however, bacterial resistance increased, even though the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics remained unchanged. Constant monitoring of local epidemiology combined with research on clinical outcomes is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of prophylaxis.

Prophylaxis with levofloxacin: impact on bacterial susceptibility and epidemiology in a hematopoietic stem cell transplant unit

Background: The emergence of resistance has been demonstrated in cancer treatment centers where prophylaxis with fluoroquinolone is used. Objective: Considering the importance of epidemiological monitoring as a strategy in choosing protocols involving antibiotics, this study aimed to evaluate the emergence of quinolone resistance and changes in the local epidemiology in a hematopoietic stem cell transplant service. Methods: For this study, 60 positive cultures before the prophylactic use of levofloxacin (period A: 2007-2008) and 118 cultures after starting the use of prophylactic levofloxacin (period B: 2010-2011) were evaluated. Results: Resistance increased for all the different types of bacteria isolated (from 46.0% to 76.5%; p-value = 0.0002). Among Gram-negative bacteria, resistance increased from 21.4% to 60.7% (p-value = 0.0163) and among Gram-positive bacteria, it increased from 55.6% to 82.9% (p-value = 0.0025). The use of levofloxacin increased from 19.44 defined daily doses per 1,000 patient-days in period A to 166.64 in period B. The use of broad spectrum antibiotics remained unchanged. Considering bacteria associated with infection, 72 and 76 were isolated in periods A and B, respectively. There was a reduction in the rate of Gramnegative bacteria in cultures associated with infection (3.81 vs. 2.00 cultures/1,000 patientdays; p-value = 0.008). Conclusion: The study of prophylaxis with levofloxacin demonstrated that there was a decrease in infections by Gram-negative bacteria; however, bacterial resistance increased, even though the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics remained unchanged. Constant monitoring of local epidemiology combined with research on clinical outcomes is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of prophylaxis. .