Using information technology to reduce the inappropriate use of surgical prophylactic antibiotic

Is Antibiotic Prophylaxis Reasonable in Parotid Surgery? Retrospective Analysis of Surgical Site Infection

Background: The prophylactic use of antibiotics in parotid region surgery continues to be a subject of debate. The aim of this study is to elucidate the impact of antibiotic prophylaxis on surgical site infections (SSIs) in parotid region surgery. Patients and Methods: Patients who received antibiotic prophylaxis during the peri-operative period were designated as group 1, whereas those who did not were categorized into group 2. Group 1 cases were further subdivided into three subgroups based on different antibiotic usage patterns. Patient individual information was collected. Clinical data such as surgical duration, post-operative hospital stay, incision infection status, and antibiotic usage were recorded. All data were compared and analyzed among different groups. Results: A total of 357 patients were included in the study, with no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics. Pre-operative American Society of Anesthesiologists scores did not significantly differ between groups (p = 0.151), but there was a significant distinction in National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance (NNIS) index values (p = 0.044). Furthermore, surgical duration (p = 0.001) and pathology types (p = 0.016) differed significantly. The post-operative hospital stay in group 1 was longer than that in group 2 (p < 0.01). The post-operative SSI rate in group 1 was lower than that in group 2 without statistical significance (2.55% vs. 5.59%, p = 0.141). The logistic regression analysis showed that malignant tumors, longer surgical durations, and higher NNIS index scores correlated positively with post-operative SSI rates. Meanwhile, compared with non-use, all three different antibiotic use modes correlated negatively with SSI occurrence. Conclusions: Antibiotic prophylaxis in parotid gland surgery shows no significant reduction in SSI occurrence. If there is a compelling reason to administer prophylactic antibiotics, pre-operative single dose may be a relatively feasible measure for preventing SSIs.

Clinical Decision Support Systems in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery: A State of the Art Review

OBJECTIVE

To offer practical, evidence-informed knowledge on clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and their utility in improving care and reducing costs in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery. This primer on CDSSs introduces clinicians to both the capabilities and the limitations of this technology, reviews the literature on current state, and seeks to spur further progress in this area.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science.

REVIEW METHODS

Scoping review of CDSS literature applicable to otolaryngology clinical practice. Investigators identified articles that incorporated knowledge-based computerized CDSSs to aid clinicians in decision making and workflow. Data extraction included level of evidence, Osheroff classification of CDSS intervention type, otolaryngology subspecialty or domain, and impact on provider performance or patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Of 3191 studies retrieved, 11 articles met formal inclusion criteria. CDSS interventions included guideline or protocols support (n = 8), forms and templates (n = 5), data presentation aids (n = 2), and reactive alerts, reference information, or order sets (all n = 1); 4 studies had multiple interventions. CDSS studies demonstrated effectiveness across diverse domains, including antibiotic stewardship, cancer survivorship, guideline adherence, data capture, cost reduction, and workflow. Implementing CDSSs often involved collaboration with health information technologists.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

While the published literature on CDSSs in otolaryngology is finite, CDSS interventions are proliferating in clinical practice, with roles in preventing medical errors, streamlining workflows, and improving adherence to best practices for head and neck disorders. Clinicians may collaborate with information technologists and health systems scientists to develop, implement, and investigate the impact of CDSSs in otolaryngology.

Investigating health information systems-induced errors

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to present a review of health information system (HIS)-induced errors and its management. This paper concludes that the occurrence of errors is inevitable but it can be minimised with preventive measures. The review of classifications can be used to evaluate medical errors related to HISs using a socio-technical approach. The evaluation could provide an understanding of errors as a learning process in managing medical errors.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

A literature review was performed on issues, sources, management and approaches to HISs-induced errors. A critical review of selected models was performed in order to identify medical error dimensions and elements based on human, process, technology and organisation factors.

FINDINGS

Various error classifications have resulted in the difficulty to understand the overall error incidents. Most classifications are based on clinical processes and settings. Medical errors are attributed to human, process, technology and organisation factors that influenced and need to be aligned with each other. Although most medical errors are caused by humans, they also originate from other latent factors such as poor system design and training. Existing evaluation models emphasise different aspects of medical errors and could be combined into a comprehensive evaluation model.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

Overview of the issues and discourses in HIS-induced errors could divulge its complexity and enable its causal analysis.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

This paper helps in understanding various types of HIS-induced errors and promising prevention and management approaches that call for further studies and improvement leading to good practices that help prevent medical errors.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

Classification of HIS-induced errors and its management, which incorporates a socio-technical and multi-disciplinary approach, could guide researchers and practitioners to conduct a holistic and systematic evaluation.

Review of information technology for surgical patient care

BACKGROUND

Electronic health records (EHRs), computerized provider order entry (CPOE), and patient portals have experienced increased adoption by health care systems. The objective of this study was to review evidence regarding the impact of such health information technologies (HIT) on surgical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify data-driven, nonsurvey studies about the effects of HIT on surgical care. Domain experts were queried for relevant articles. Two authors independently reviewed abstracts for inclusion criteria and analyzed full text of eligible articles.

RESULTS

A total of 2890 citations were identified. Of them, 32 observational studies and two randomized controlled trials met eligibility criteria. EHR or CPOE improved appropriate antibiotic administration for surgical procedures in 13 comparative observational studies. Five comparative observational studies indicated that electronically generated operative notes had increased accuracy, completeness, and availability in the medical record. The Internet as an information resource about surgical procedures was generally inadequate. Surgical patients and providers demonstrated rapid adoption of patient portals, with increasing proportions of online versus inperson outpatient surgical encounters.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall quality of evidence about the effects of HIT in surgical practice was low. Current data suggest an improvement in appropriate perioperative antibiotic administration and accuracy of operative reports from CPOE and EHR applications. Online consumer health educational resources and patient portals are popular among patients and families, but their impact has not been studied well in surgical populations. With increasing adoption of HIT, further research is needed to optimize the efficacy of such tools in surgical care.

Role of perioperative antibiotic treatment in parotid gland surgery

BACKGROUND

The value of routine prophylactic antibiotic treatment in parotid gland surgery remains undetermined.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted of all patients who underwent parotidectomy at a university-affiliated tertiary care center between 1992 and 2009. Patients with insufficient data, specifically regarding postoperative complications and antibiotic administration were excluded from the study cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 593 patients underwent parotidectomy during the study period. After exclusion, 464 patients were eligible for the study. Perioperative antibiotic treatment was given to 206 patients (45%). There was no difference in wound infection rates between patients who received perioperative antibiotic therapy and those who did not (p = .168). Multivariate analysis showed that female sex, neck dissection, and drain output >50 cc/24 hours were predictive of postoperative wound infection.

CONCLUSION

Routine prophylactic antibiotic treatment has no role in parotid gland surgery. Perioperative antibiotic treatment is recommended for patients undergoing extensive parotid gland surgery with neck dissection. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38: E1876-E1880, 2016.

Current evidence regarding prophylactic antibiotics in head and neck and maxillofacial surgery

Antibiotic prophylaxis is commonly used to decrease the rate of infections in head and neck surgery. The aim of this paper is to present the available evidence regarding the application of antibiotic prophylaxis in surgical procedures of the head and neck region in healthy patients. A systemic literature review based on Medline and Embase databases was performed. All reviews and meta-analyses based on RCTs in English from 2000 to 2013 were included. Eight out of 532 studies fulfilled all requirements. Within those, only seven different operative procedures were analyzed. Evidence exists for the beneficial use of prophylactic antibiotics for tympanostomy, orthognathic surgery, and operative tooth extractions. Unfortunately, little high-level evidence exists regarding the use of prophylactic antibiotics in head and neck surgery. In numerous cases, no clear benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis has been shown, particularly considering their potential adverse side effects. Antibiotics are often given unnecessarily and are administered too late and for too long. Furthermore, little research has been performed on the large number of routine cases in the above-mentioned areas of specialization within the last few years, although questions arising with respect to the treatment of high-risk patients or of specific infections are discussed on a broad base.

What is the quality of reporting of studies of interventions to increase compliance with antibiotic prophylaxis?

BACKGROUND

Despite studies reporting successful interventions to increase antibiotic prophylaxis compliance, surgical site infections remain a significant problem. The reasons for this lack of improvement are unknown. This review evaluates the internal and external validity of quality improvement studies of interventions to increase surgical antibiotic prophylaxis compliance.

STUDY DESIGN

Three investigators independently performed systematic literature searches and selected eligible studies that evaluated interventions to improve perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis timing, type, and/or discontinuation. Studies published before the Surgical Infection Prevention project inception in 2002 were excluded. Each study was assessed based on modified criteria for evaluating quality improvement studies (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) and for facilitating implementation of evidence into practice (Reach-Efficacy-Adoption-Implementation-Maintenance).

RESULTS

Forty-six articles met inclusion criteria; 93% reported improvement in antibiotic prophylaxis compliance. Surgical site infections were evaluated in 50% of studies and 65% reported an improvement. Less than 5% of studies used randomization, allocation concealment, or blinding. Nine percent of studies described efforts to minimize bias in the design results and analysis and 13% described a sample size calculation. Approximately one-third of studies described participant adoption of the intervention (26%), factors affecting generalizability (33%), or implementation barriers (37%). Most studies (80%) used multiple interventions; no single intervention was associated with change in compliance. Studies with the lowest baseline compliance showed the greatest improvement, regardless of the intervention(s).

CONCLUSIONS

The methodology and reporting of quality improvement studies on perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis is suboptimal, and factors that would improve generalizability of successful intervention implementation are infrequently reported. Clinicians should use caution in applying the results of these studies to their general practice.