ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2022
Implementation of the Antimicrobial Review Kit (ARK) to optimise antimicrobial prescribing at the Royal Cornwall Hospital: a behavioural change odyssey.
Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Unwelcome guests: infectious disease beyond the pandemic.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antibiotic use drives antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The Antimicrobial Review Kit (ARK) study is a complex intervention based on national antibiotic stewardship guidance. We describe the implementation of ARK at a 760-bed teaching hospital that uses electronic prescribing. An online education module was disseminated to healthcare workers, and the ARK decision tool was incorporated into the medical clerking pro forma. From July 2018, junior doctors audited the frequency, the outcomes of pre-72-hour antibiotic reviews and the use of the ARK tool. The data were used to formulate specialty-level feedback and bench marking. First-phase data were plotted on statistical process control (SPC) charts to distinguish between common and special cause variation. There was significant improvement in antibiotic review rates (81% to 93%) and stop rates (10% to 15%). The stop rate reached 25% in the most recent data. Given the promising trends, it may be possible to achieve the target stop rate of 30%.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.