ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024
A complex ePrescribing antimicrobial stewardship-based (ePAMS+) intervention for hospitals: mixed-methods feasibility trial results.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAntibiotic resistant infections cause over 700,000 deaths worldwide annually. As antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) helps minimise the emergence of antibiotic resistance resulting from inappropriate use of antibiotics in healthcare, we developed ePAMS+ (ePrescribing-based Anti-Microbial Stewardship), an ePrescribing and Medicines Administration (EPMA) system decision-support tool complemented by educational, behavioural and organisational elements.
methodsWe conducted a non-randomised before-and-after feasibility trial, implementing ePAMS+ in two English hospitals using the Cerner Millennium EPMA system. Wards of several specialties were included. Patient participants were blinded to whether ePAMS+ was in use; prescribers were not. A mixed-methods evaluation aimed to establish: acceptability and usability of ePAMS+ and trial processes; feasibility of ePAMS+ implementation and quantitative outcome recording; and a Fidelity Index measuring the extent to which ePAMS+ was delivered as intended. Longitudinal semi-structured interviews of doctors, nurses and pharmacists, alongside non-participant observations, gathered qualitative data; we extracted quantitative prescribing data from the EPMA system. Normal linear modelling of the defined daily dose (DDD) of antibiotic per admission quantified its variability, to inform sample size calculations for a future trial of ePAMS+ effectiveness.
resultsThe research took place during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, from April 2021 to November 2022. 60 qualitative interviews were conducted (33 before ePAMS+ implementation, 27 after). 1,958 admissions (1,358 before ePAMS+ implementation; 600 after) included 24,884 antibiotic orders. Qualitative interviews confirmed that some aspects of ePAMS+ , its implementation and training were acceptable, while other features (e.g. enabling combinations of antibiotics to be prescribed) required further development. ePAMS+ uptake was low (28 antibiotic review records from 600 admissions; 0.047 records per admission), preventing full development of a Fidelity Index. Normal linear modelling of antibiotic DDD per admission showed a residual variance of 1.086 (log-transformed scale). Unavailability of indication data prevented measurement of some outcomes (e.g. number of antibiotic courses per indication).
conclusionsThis feasibility trial encountered unforeseen circumstances due to contextual factors and a global pandemic, highlighting the need for careful adaptation of complex intervention implementations to the local setting. We identified key refinements to ePAMS+ to support its wider adoption in clinical practice, requiring further piloting before a confirmatory effectiveness trial.
trial registrationISRCTN Registry ISRCTN13429325, 24 March 2022.
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.