ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2023
Accuracy of antibacterial indication documentation in an electronic medicines management system.
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: Electronic medicines management (EMM) systems are relatively new in the Australian healthcare system. This tertiary hospital network implemented an EMM in 2018, with mandatory documentation of antimicrobial indication when prescribing. Free-text (unrestricted) and pre-defined dropdown (restricted) indications are utilized according to antimicrobial restriction. Objectives: To determine accuracy of antibacterial indication documentation on the medication administration record (MAR) when prescribing and to evaluate factors influencing accuracy of documentation. Methods: A random sample of 400 inpatient admissions of ≥24 h, between March and September 2019, with the first antibacterial prescription per encounter reviewed retrospectively. Demographic and prescription details were extracted. Indication accuracy was assessed by comparing MAR documentation with the medical notes (gold standard). Statistical analysis compared factors associated with accuracy of indication using chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests. Results: Antibacterials were prescribed in 9708 admissions. Of the 400 patients included (60% male; median age 60 years, IQR 40-73), 225 prescriptions were unrestricted and 175 were restricted. Patients were managed by emergency (118), surgical (178) and medical (104) teams. Overall accuracy of antibacterial indication documentation on the MAR was 86%. A higher accuracy rate was found for the unrestricted proportion compared with the restricted proportion (94.2% versus 75.2%; Discussion: Antibacterial indication documentation on the MAR when prescribing demonstrated a high rate of accuracy. Multiple factors influenced this accuracy, which requires further study to determine the impact on accuracy, with a view to improve future EMM builds.
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.