Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The effectiveness of computerised decision support on antibiotic use in hospitals: A systematic review

  • Christopher E. Curtis ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Christopher E. Curtis, Fares Al Bahar, John F. Marriott

    Roles Formal analysis, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    c.e.curtis@bham.ac.uk

    Affiliation School of Pharmacy, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom

    ⨯
  • Fares Al Bahar ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Christopher E. Curtis, Fares Al Bahar, John F. Marriott

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations School of Pharmacy, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom

    ⨯
  • John F. Marriott

    Contributed equally to this work with: Christopher E. Curtis, Fares Al Bahar, John F. Marriott

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation School of Pharmacy, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom

    ⨯

Abstract

Background

Inappropriate antimicrobial use has been shown to be an important determinant of the emergence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Health information technology (HIT) in the form of Computerised Decision Support (CDS) represents an option for improving antimicrobial prescribing and containing AMR.

Objectives

To evaluate the evidence for CDS in improving quantitative and qualitative measures of antibiotic prescribing in inpatient hospital settings.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted of articles published from inception to 20th December 2014 using eight electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PUBMED, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, HMIC and PsychINFo. An updated systematic literature search was conducted from January 1st 2015 to October 1st 2016 using PUBMED. The search strategy used combinations of the following terms: (electronic prescribing) OR (clinical decision support) AND (antibiotic or antibacterial or antimicrobial) AND (hospital or secondary care or inpatient). Studies were evaluated for quality using a 10-point rating scale.

Results

Eighty-one studies were identified matching the inclusion criteria. Seven outcome measures were evaluated: adequacy of antibiotic coverage, mortality, volume of antibiotic usage, length of stay, antibiotic cost, compliance with guidelines, antimicrobial resistance, and CDS implementation and uptake. Meta-analysis of pooled outcomes showed CDS significantly improved the adequacy of antibiotic coverage (n = 13; odds ratio [OR], 2.11 [95% CI, 1.67 to 2.66, p ≤ 0.00001]). Also, CDS was associated with marginally lowered mortality (n = 20; OR, 0.85 [CI, 0.75 to 0.96, p = 0.01]). CDS was associated with lower antibiotic utilisation, increased compliance with antibiotic guidelines and reductions in antimicrobial resistance. Conflicting effects of CDS on length of stay, antibiotic costs and system uptake were also noted.

Conclusions

CDS has the potential to improve the adequacy of antibiotic coverage and marginally decrease mortality in hospital-related settings.

Citation: Curtis CE, Al Bahar F, Marriott JF (2017) The effectiveness of computerised decision support on antibiotic use in hospitals: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 12(8): e0183062. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183062

Editor: Ramy K. Aziz, Cairo University, EGYPT

Received: June 9, 2017; Accepted: July 28, 2017; Published: August 24, 2017

Copyright: © 2017 Curtis et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: Fares Al Bahar has had his Ph.D student course fees to attend the University of Birmingham, UK, paid for by Zarqa University, Zarqa, Jordan.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Antimicrobials have saved millions of lives since their introduction[1] however; antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has increased over the past four decades.[2] Evidence shows that 30%-50% of antimicrobial prescribing is sub-optimal.[3] Inappropriate antimicrobial use has been shown to be an important determinant of the emergence and persistence of AMR.[2] This pattern of irrational use in hospitals and the relative reduction in development of new antibiotic entities pose a challenge for clinicians, as their options to treat infections, especially those caused by resistant pathogens, become limited.

The use of health information technology (HIT) is one strategy to optimise antibiotic use in health care settings. Over the last twenty years, there have been rapid advances and investment in HIT, manifesting as an increased uptake of the use of computers in healthcare. The NHS embraces the role of HIT in optimising the quality of care and patient safety. In the UK, £12.8 billion has been invested in the National Programme for Information Technology (NPfIT) by the National Health Service (NHS).[4] Computerised Decision Support (CDS) represents a potential solution for improving antimicrobial prescribing and containing antimicrobial resistance by supporting clinical decision making[5,6] thus optimising antibiotic use and improving patient outcomes. It potentially plays an important role in guiding prescribing practices such as antibiotic selection and dosing suggestions, alerting potential adverse drug reactions and drug allergies.

Two previous systematic reviews focused on the impact CDS on antibiotic use in primary care[7] and included non-computerised decision support.[8] Another more recent systematic review addressed a similar research question and examined the impact of HIT interventions on antimicrobial prescribing.[9] The scope, design and timing of these reviews may have excluded relevant CDS studies that match the inclusion criteria in this review. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the current state of evidence for CDS interventions on antibiotic use in the hospital inpatient setting. Meta-analysis was conducted using odds ratio to assess the impact of CDS on the adequacy of antibiotic coverage and mortality and to assess the impact of CDS, using relative differences, on length of stay, volume of antibiotic use, antimicrobial resistance and compliance with guidelines.

Methods

Data source and study selection

A systematic literature search was conducted utilising eight online databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PUBMED, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, HMIC, and PsycINFO. The search was conducted from inception to 20th December, 2014. An updated literature search was conducted from January 1st 2015 to October 1st 2016 using PUBMED. The searches were conducted using a strategy based upon combinations of the following terms: (electronic prescribing) OR (clinical decision support) AND (antibiotic or antibacterial or antimicrobial) AND (hospital or secondary care or inpatient). The search strategy appears in S1 Appendix, PRISMA search strategy details. This was supported by use of a checklist S1 Checklist PRISMA 2009 checklist to ensure that PRISMA principles were followed during the process.

Titles and abstracts from retrieved references were examined by two reviewers (FA and CEC) to determine the potential inclusion eligibility. Full texts of potential studies were examined for eligibility against the review inclusion criteria. Bibliographies of retrieved articles and previous systematic reviews were examined to identify additional articles that could have been missed by this search strategy.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Criteria for inclusion in the systematic review were: (i) conducted by health care providers in inpatient or ICU or emergency (ED) settings (ii) the intervention involved CDS aimed at improving antibiotic prescribing at the point of care and (iii) the intervention was compared to no intervention, non-CDS intervention (non-electronic decision support) or to an intervention with CDS of different features. For the purpose of the systematic review, CDS was defined as a computer-based system designed to help directly in clinical decision making in which characteristics of individual patients are utilised to generate recommendations presented to clinicians at the point of care in a passive or active format such as alerts, reminders and guidelines.[10–12]

Non-electronic CDS studies, non-hospital based studies, qualitative studies, case reports, case series studies, conference abstracts, commentaries, and letters, papers examining the performance of the system as opposed to its impact on antibiotic prescribing were excluded. In the case where a study had an unclear inclusion status, conflicts were resolved and consensus was reached by a third reviewer (JFM).

Data extraction and quality assessment

A custom data extraction form was created to match the specific needs of the review. Data related to study design, participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and main findings were extracted by one reviewer (FA) and confirmed by another (CEC). Disagreements were resolved by consensus, with a third investigator (JFM). When studies did not report sufficient data to allow pooling for meta-analysis, results were summarised qualitatively using relative differences. Email requests for additional data were made to authors of papers containing insufficient information to be included in the meta-analyses.

The quality of included studies was assessed using a 10-point rating scale previously used to evaluate CDS studies (see Table 1).[9,13–15] The scale included five domains (2 points per domain): method of allocation of study groups, unit of allocation, presence of baseline differences between groups, objectivity of outcome measures, and completeness of follow-up for appropriate unit of analysis. Assessment of the methodological quality of the eligible studies was undertaken independently by two reviewers (FA, CEC). Reviewer disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer (JFM).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Detail of the 10-point Quality Assessment Scale used in the present study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183062.t001

Data analysis and statistical analysis

A defined set of outcomes essential in estimating the effect of CDS in optimising antibiotic use shaped the synthesis process. Meta-analysis was conducted when studies evaluated the same outcome and had sufficient data to allow pooling. All studies were eligible for consideration for inclusion in the meta-analysis as all assessed the impact of CDS on antibiotic prescribing in the hospital inpatient setting. The meta-analysis focused on two outcomes: adequacy of antibiotic coverage (13 studies) and mortality (20 studies). Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each trial by reconstructing tables based on the number of patients randomly allocated and the number of patients with the outcome of interest. Inter-study variance was assessed using the Tau2 test. Inter-study heterogeneity was assessed using the Chi2 test and the I2 statistics. An I2 value higher than 75% was regarded as ‘significant heterogeneity’ and a value less than 40% was considered ‘not significant heterogeneity’. Study results were considered statistically significant if the p value was below 0.05. Summary estimates were calculated by using the Mantel Haenszel random–effects model[16] in Reviewer Manager ((RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014). This enabled an estimate of variation between studies to be made by comparing study results with a fixed effect meta-analysis result.

The calculated heterogeneity of included studies and outcome assessment precluded pooling of data for some outcomes, in which case percentage mean difference analyses of such outcomes were conducted. To facilitate comparison across studies, units of volume of antibiotic use were converted to defined daily doses per 1000 patient-days (DDD/1000 patient-days), while units for drug costs were left in the currency of the country of origin. Compliance with antibiotic guidelines was measured by percentage mean differences between intervention and control groups and length of stay was measured by differences in days between intervention and control groups.

Results

Search results

For this systematic review, the PRISMA statement was adopted[17] as detailed in Figure A in S1 File, PRISMA checklist highlighting study selection, which shows the results of the search and selection process. After screening 2459 studies, the removal of 237 duplicates between databases, the addition of 18 studies from bibliographies of included studies and previous systematic reviews, and the addition of 10 studies from the second updated PUBMED search, a total 378 full-text studies were reviewed. Of these, 297 studies did not meet inclusion criteria for the following reasons: were not conducted in secondary or tertiary care settings, did not answer research questions, or had inadequate study design. The characteristics and a bibliography of the 81 included studies are summarized in S1 Table, Characteristics of included studies (Table A). References for included studies (List A). Twenty-six studies assessed mortality, 25 assessed length of stay, 19 assessed volume of antibiotic usage, 16 assessed adequacy of antibiotic coverage, 15 assessed CDS uptake and use, 15 assessed cost of antibiotics, 10 assessed compliance with guidelines, and 4 assessed antimicrobial resistance. The majority of studies were conducted in the United States (45 studies).

CDS interventions

The classification of CDS interventions by Baysari and co-workers was adopted in the present review.[9] CDS interventions found in this systematic review took four main forms: (1) stand-alone computerised decision support systems (CDSSs), (2) decision support embedded within a hospital's electronic medical record (EMR) or computerized provider order entry (CPOE) system, (3) computerized antimicrobial approval systems, and (4) antibiotic surveillance systems. Interventions were evaluated against usual care, no CDS, paper-based decision support or CDS.

Quality of studies

This systematic review indicates that the current state of evidence for CDS in optimising antibiotic use is poor and is limited to non-Cochrane study designs as there were few randomised studies found in the literature. The majority of studies identified used before-and-after designs with very few including a control group. The included studies achieved an average score of 5.7 of a possible total of 10 on the rating scale. Random allocation of health care professionals, patients or units to a CDS intervention was rare. The majority of studies assessed an objective outcome measure (length of stay) or used a subjective measure with blinded assessment.

Outcomes of CDS use

Adequacy of antibiotic coverage.

Sixteen studies reported on the adequacy of antibiotic coverage. [1,5,18–31] Adequacy of antibiotic coverage was defined in individual studies and included retrospective review of antibiotic recommendations made by CDS systems and measures of prescriber compliance with published guidelines when CDS was in use. Thirteen of these contained sufficient information to be included in the meta-analysis [1,5,18,21,23–31], ten of which (1, 22, 24–27, 29–32) reported a statistically significant effect of CDS on the adequacy of antibiotic coverage. Three studies were not included in the meta-analysis since they presented insufficient data to allow pooling of outcomes. Individual and pooled estimates are shown in Figure B in S1 File, Forest plot from individual studies and meta-analysis for adequacy of antibiotic coverage.). Overall, CDS interventions were associated with an increase in adequacy of antibiotic coverage based on the random effects model [OR = 2.11, 95% CI, 1.67 to 2.66, p < 0.00001]. There was evidence of heterogeneity between studies (Chi2 = 55.85, df = 15, I2 = 73%, p < 0.00001) (Figure B in S1 File Forest plot from individual studies and meta-analysis for adequacy of antibiotic coverage. There was evidence of an effect of CDS interventions on the adequacy of antibiotic coverage for Cochrane compliant studies [OR = 1.47, 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.10, p = 0.03], and for non-Cochrane studies [OR = 2.18, 95% CI, 1.69 to 2.80, p < 0.00001] (Figure B in S1 File Forest plot from individual studies and meta-analysis for adequacy of antibiotic coverage).

Mortality.

Twenty-six studies evaluated the impact of CDS on mortality [1,18,22,24,25,30,32–50]. Twenty studies contained sufficient information to be included in the meta-analysis [1,18,24,25,30,32–36,40–45,47–50], four of which reported a statistically significant effect of CDS on mortality. Six studies were not included in the meta-analysis because of insufficient data to allow pooling of outcomes. Individual and pooled estimates are shown in Figure C in S1 File, Forest plot from individual studies and meta-analysis for mortality. Overall, results showed that CDS interventions had a marginal statistically significant effect on mortality based on the random effects model. [OR = 0.85, 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.96, p = 0.01]. There was evidence of heterogeneity between studies (Chi2 = 42.37, df = 20, I2 = 53%, p = 0.01).

There was no evidence of an effect of CDS interventions on mortality for Cochrane compliant studies (N = 5) [OR = 0.88, 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.04, p = 0.13]. Based on non-Cochrane studies (N = 16), there was a marginal statistically significant effect of CDS interventions on mortality [OR = 0.84, 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.99, p = 0.04] (Figure C in S1 File, Forest plot from individual studies and meta-analysis for mortality.).

Volume of antibiotic usage.

Nineteen studies reported on the impact of CDS on the volume of antibiotic usage.[20,26,32,33,36,37,39,44,46,48,50–58]. Values for total antibiotic use are summarised in Table 2. Fourteen studies showed decreases in antibiotic usage.[26,33,36,37,39,44,46,48,52,53,55–58] Two studies showed increases in antibiotic usage.[32,50] One study by Fisher and co-workers showed conflicting results as intravenous DDDs significantly decreased by 11.1% (p = 0.002), but was coupled with a compensatory increase in oral DDDs of 3.7% (p = 0.002).[20] The unit of measurement for drug use differed between studies, making it difficult to compare the impact of each intervention. A study by Burke and co-workers demonstrated an unexpected increase in DDDs which may be attributed to the declining ICU length of stay.[32] Thursky and co-workers showed a significant reduction of antibiotic DDDs (1660 to 1490 DDDs/1000 ICU bed-days), which was accompanied by a significant decrease in proportion of patients who received broad spectrum antibiotics.[26]

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Reduction in overall antibiotic usage with CDS interventions in secondary care.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183062.t002

Length of stay.

Values for length of stay are summarised in Table 3. Sixteen studies showed decreases in length of stay.[24,25,30,32,34,36,37,40,41,43–45,49,52,53,59] Three studies showed increases in length of stay.[2,20,60] Three studies showed no change in length of stay.[18,50,61] Three further studies reported conflicting effects of CDS on length of stay across different intervention arms.[33,35]

thumbnail
Download:
Table 3. Length of stay associated with CDS implementation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183062.t003

Cost of antibiotics.

Fifteen studies reported on the impact of CDS on antibiotic cost. [18,20,24,27,29,31,33,34,36,44,50,52,55,59,62] Values for cost of antibiotic use are summarised in Table 4. The unit of cost report varied making it difficult to measure the overall impact of CDS. Nine studies showed decreases in cost of antimicrobials after implementing CDS.[24,27,34,36,44,50,52,59] Four studies showed increases in cost of antibiotics following CDS implementation.[18,20,31,50] Two studies reported conflicting results on antibiotic costs.[31,33] In the study conducted by Evans and co-workers, the cost of antibiotics per patient decreased when CDS recommendations were adopted ($340 vs. $102).[33] In contrast, the cost of antibiotics per patient increased when CDS recommendations were overridden ($340 vs. $427).[33] The study by Buising and co-workers showed that CDS was superior to baseline and inferior to academic detailing in cost saving.[31] However Paul and co-workers (25) reported no difference in antibiotic costs associated with observed side effects between CDS and control groups. No study reported on the overall costs of implementation of CDS.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 4. Antibiotic cost reductions associated with CDS interventions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183062.t004

Compliance with guidelines.

Ten studies reported on the impact of CDS on compliance with guidelines.[19,28,31,35,51,60,63–66] Values for the percentage of compliance with guidelines are summarised in Table 5. CDS effects were measured as absolute percentage differences between CDS and intervention groups. All studies demonstrated that CDS improved adherence to guidelines (see Table 5). Guiliano and co-workers showed that CDS improved adherence to sepsis resuscitation and management bundles.[60] Tafelski and co-workers showed that ICU mortality was significantly increased in low adherence group (LAG) compared to high adherence group (HAG) (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.126 to 5.243).[39]

thumbnail
Download:
Table 5. Compliance associated with CDS.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183062.t005

Antimicrobial resistance.

Four studies reported on AMR.[36,46,48,54] In a study by Chan and co-workers, the rate of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) decreased from 65–70% before the implementation of the antimicrobial approval system in 2003 to less than 60% in 2009.[46] Buising and co-workers showed a trend after the introduction of an antimicrobial approval system towards increased susceptibility of S. aureus to methicillin and increasing susceptibility of Pseudomonas spp. isolates to both carbapenems and aminoglycosides.[48]

Use and implementation.

Fifteen studies assessed aspects of the use and implementation of CDS, such as user satisfaction,[2,33,52,67–69] user uptake,[37,48,59,68] and acceptance of CDS recommendations.[38,46,50,51,59,70,71,72] Six studies showed improvement of user uptake and satisfaction. In a study by Chow and co-workers, the proportion of times when CDS was used when antibiotics were prescribed increased from 23% in phase (1) to 38% in phase (2) and to 87% in phase (3).[70] CDS recommendations were accepted in 40% to 89% of cases. Buising and co-workers showed that the use of an approval system increased between 2005 and 2006 and reached a plateau of 250–300 new approvals per month.[48]. Stevenson and colleagues showed that agreement with CDS recommendations had a pooled odds ratio (1.88, 95% CI, 1.01–3.56, p = 0.04).[38] In contrast, six studies showed poor user uptake of CDS recommendations. In a study by Hum and co-workers, 37% of those eligible used CDS while working in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.[68] Sintchenko and co-workers [73] showed a low level of CDS adoption as only one third of CDS recommendations were accepted, while Evans and co-workers showed that 37% of CDS recommendations were accepted.

Discussion

Main findings

Evidence for the impact of CDS on antibiotic use in hospital inpatient settings has been reviewed systematically. Almost half of the studies included in the present systematic review did not appear in previous systematic reviews. This highlights the pace of the introduction and evaluation of health information technology in hospital settings. Therefore, this systematic review extends previous evidence, including studies never evaluated previously.

Studies were extremely variable in the types of CDS interventions and in the outcomes assessed. The most commonly assessed outcomes were mortality, length of stay, volume of antibiotic use and adequacy of antibiotic coverage. Other outcomes assessed included system uptake, antimicrobial resistance, cost and compliance with guidelines. Only a small number of studies of this systematic review assessed health outcomes (mortality and adequacy of antibiotic coverage) which may limit the strength of evidence needed to reflect on CDS design, selection and implementation.

The principal findings of the meta-analysis indicate evidence that some studies of CDS interventions were associated with improvements in adequacy of antibiotic coverage (by more than 100%) and patient mortality (reducing the risk of death by about 15%). However, these findings were likely to be driven by data from poor quality studies. Increases in compliance with guidelines have been noted in the present review. Drawing conclusions about the effects of CDS on length of stay and cost of antibiotics is difficult since results from the present review are conflicting. A meta-analysis by Baysari and co-workers (9) showed similar findings of the impact of CDS interventions on adequacy of antibiotic coverage The current systematic review indicated conflicting results on CDS uptake as some studies showed improved uptake while other showed poor adoption. A study by Demonchy and coworkers[19], has highlighted uptake and implementation issues of CDS as a major barrier. The impact of CDS interventions would have been greater if used regularly by prescribers.

Strengths

This systematic review provides a comprehensive, up-to-date overview of CDS interventions aimed at optimising antibiotic use in the hospital inpatient setting. A wide range of outcome measures was assessed including outcomes that have not been previously evaluated, such as cost, system uptake and antimicrobial resistance. It is noteworthy that non-randomised designs have been commonly utilised in evaluations of health informatics developments, as evidenced by this systematic review. The present review included studies that have not been included in other systematic reviews.

Given that the quality and study design of included studies were generally poor and the heterogeneity in respect of study quality and end points, the synthesis of the studies was problematic. However, it was possible to conduct meta-analysis and subgroup analysis which adds to the strength of this review.

Limitations and future research

The present systematic review is limited by the quality of studies included for analysis coupled with limitations inherent in the applied methods. All studies were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis but information contained in studies enabled meta-analysis to be conducted for two outcomes: adequacy of antibiotic coverage (n = 13 studies) and mortality (n = 20 studies). The number of studies that reported other outcome measures (e.g. volume of antibiotic use and cost) in a uniform way was not sufficient for other meta-analysis to be conducted.

Heterogeneity in study designs, CDS interventions, outcomes, implementation and contextual factors make it difficult to reach firm conclusions about the impact of CDS. Subgroup analysis was not successful in explaining or even reducing heterogeneity across subgroups. This indicates that heterogeneity was inherent in poor methodological and intervention designs.

There is a possibility that selective reporting may reduce the validity of some of the conclusions. A marginal reduction of mortality is a key finding of from this systematic review; however, this finding is based on a limited number of studies (n = 20). Selective reporting could not be controlled, as it is not clear how many studies that might have found an increase in mortality it would take to nullify or even reverse the findings here. Therefore, an assurance that there is no risk of an increase in mortality is not possible. Caution needs to be applied with regards to the possibility of publication bias or evaluation by developers. It should be clear that an external evaluation should be reported using accepted mixed methods research. There is a lack of literature about the impact of CPOE without explicit CDS from commercial vendors: this may be due to publication bias.

Future work should include conducting high quality systematic multi-site comparative studies of different CDS interventions for antibiotic prescribing. More qualitative work is required to highlight the barriers and facilitators of adopting CDS technology and better understanding users’ perceptions and attitudes towards CDS interventions to trigger high adoption and uptake by providers.

Conclusion

This review indicates that CDS interventions can be effective in optimising antibiotic use in hospitals. The findings of this review can be used to enrich the debate around the impact of CDS on antibiotic optimisation. This review demonstrates the efficacy of CDS in optimising the adequacy of antibiotic coverage across different settings. However, evidence on the effect of CDS on clinical outcomes, economic outcomes and volume of antibiotic use was limited. CDS appears to be safe because the present review has not shown any significant risks such as worsening mortality or length of stay. CDS presents a promising future for optimising antibiotic use and improving patient care. However, in order to reach firm conclusions about the impact of CDS on antibiotic use, more high quality studies are needed within different settings and in different health systems.

Supporting information

S1 File.

PRISMA checklist highlighting study selection (Figure A). Forest plot from individual studies and meta-analysis for adequacy of antibiotic coverage (Figure B). Forest plot from individual studies and meta-analysis for mortality (Figure C).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183062.s001

(DOCX)

S1 Table.

Characteristics of included studies (Table A). References for included studies (List A).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183062.s002

(DOCX)

S1 Appendix. PRISMA Search strategy details.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183062.s003

(DOCX)

S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2009 checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183062.s004

(DOC)

References

  1. 1. Filice GA, Drekonja DM, Thurn JR, Rector TS, Hamann GM, Masoud B T, et al. (2013) Use of a computer decision support system and antimicrobial therapy appropriateness. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 34: 558–565. pmid:23651885
  2. 2. King WJ, Le Saux N, Sampson M, Gaboury I, Norris M, Moher D. (2007) Effect of point of care information on inpatient management of bronchiolitis. BMC Pediatrics 7.
  3. 3. Dellit TH, Owens RC, McGowan JE Jr., Gerding DN, Weinstein RA, Burke J P, et al. (2007) Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America guidelines for developing an institutional program to enhance antimicrobial stewardship. Clin Infect Dis 44: 159–177. pmid:17173212
  4. 4. Black AD, Car J, Pagliari C, Anandan C, Cresswell K, Bokun T, et al. (2011) The impact of eHealth on the quality and safety of health care: a systematic overview. PLoS Med 8: e1000387. pmid:21267058
  5. 5. Westphal JF, Jehl F, Javelot H, Nonnenmacher C (2011) Enhanced physician adherence to antibiotic use guidelines through increased availability of guidelines at the time of drug ordering in hospital setting. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 20: 162–168. pmid:21254287
  6. 6. Calloway S, Akilo HA, Bierman K (2013) Impact of a Clinical Decision Support System on Pharmacy Clinical Interventions, Documentation Efforts, and Costs. Hosp Pharm 48: 744–752. pmid:24421548
  7. 7. Holstiege J, Mathes T, Pieper D (2015) Effects of computer-aided clinical decision support systems in improving antibiotic prescribing by primary care providers: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 22: 236–242. pmid:25125688
  8. 8. Shebl NA, Franklin BD, Barber N (2007) Clinical decision support systems and antibiotic use. Pharm World Sci 29: 342–349. pmid:17458707
  9. 9. Baysari MT, Lehnbom EC, Li L, Hargreaves A, Day RO, Westbrook J I. (2016) The effectiveness of information technology to improve antimicrobial prescribing in hospitals: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Inform 92: 15–34. pmid:27318068
  10. 10. Kawamoto K, Houlihan CA, Balas EA, Lobach DF (2005) Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. BMJ 330: 765. pmid:15767266
  11. 11. Bates DW, Kuperman GJ, Wang S, Gandhi T, Kittler A, Volk L, et al. (2003) Ten commandments for effective clinical decision support: making the practice of evidence-based medicine a reality. J Am Med Inform Assoc 10: 523–530. pmid:12925543
  12. 12. Bright TJ, Wong A, Dhurjati R, Bristow E, Bastian L, Coeytaux R R, et al. (2012) Effect of clinical decision-support systems: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 157.
  13. 13. Hunt DL, Haynes RB, Hanna SE, Smith K (1998) Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA 280: 1339–1346. pmid:9794315
  14. 14. Garg AX, Adhikari NK, McDonald H, Rosas-Arellano MP, Devereaux PJ, Beyene J, et al. (2005) Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA 293: 1223–1238. pmid:15755945
  15. 15. Pearson SA, Moxey A, Robertson J, Hains I, Williamson M, Reeve J, et al. (2009) Do computerised clinical decision support systems for prescribing change practice? A systematic review of the literature (1990–2007). BMC Health Serv Res 9: 154. pmid:19715591
  16. 16. DerSimonian R, Kacker R (2007) Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: an update. Contemp Clin Trials 28: 105–114. pmid:16807131
  17. 17. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6: e1000097. pmid:19621072
  18. 18. Arboe B, Laub RR, Kronborg G, Knudsen JD (2014) Evaluation of the decision support system for antimicrobial treatment, TREAT, in an acute medical ward of a university hospital. Int J Infect Dis 29: 156–161. pmid:25461242
  19. 19. Demonchy E, Dufour JC, Gaudart J, Cervetti E, Michelet P, Poussard N, et al. (2014) Impact of a computerized decision support system on compliance with guidelines on antibiotics prescribed for urinary tract infections in emergency departments: a multicentre prospective before-and-after controlled interventional study. J Antimicrob Chemother 69: 2857–2863. pmid:24898019
  20. 20. Fischer MA, Solomon DH, Teich JM, Avorn J (2003) Conversion from intravenous to oral medications: assessment of a computerized intervention for hospitalized patients. Arch Intern Med 163: 2585–2589. pmid:14638558
  21. 21. Leibovici L, Gitelman V, Yehezkelli Y, Poznanski O, Milo G, Paul M, et al. (1997) Improving empirical antibiotic treatment: prospective, nonintervention testing of a decision support system. J Intern Med 242: 395–400. pmid:9408069
  22. 22. Micek ST, Heard KM, Gowan M, Kollef MH (2014) Identifying critically ill patients at risk for inappropriate antibiotic therapy: a pilot study of a point-of-care decision support alert. Crit Care Med 42: 1832–1838. pmid:24751497
  23. 23. Mullett CJ, Thomas JG, Smith CL, Sarwari AR, Khakoo RA (2004) Computerized antimicrobial decision support: an offline evaluation of a database-driven empiric antimicrobial guidance program in hospitalized patients with a bloodstream infection. Int J Med Inform 73: 455–460. pmid:15171986
  24. 24. Paul M, Andreassen S, Tacconelli E, Nielsen AD, Almanasreh N, Frank U, et al. (2006) Improving empirical antibiotic treatment using TREAT, a computerized decision support system: cluster randomized trial. J Antimicrob Chemother 58: 1238–1245. pmid:16998208
  25. 25. Rodriguez-Maresca M, Sorlozano A, Grau M, Rodriguez-Castano R, Ruiz-Valverde A, Gutierrez-fernandez J. (2014) Implementation of a computerized decision support system to improve the appropriateness of antibiotic therapy using local microbiologic data. Biomed Res Int 2014: 395434. pmid:25197643
  26. 26. Thursky KA, Buising KL, Bak N, Macgregor L, Street AC, Macintyre C R, et al. (2006) Reduction of broad-spectrum antibiotic use with computerized decision support in an intensive care unit. Int J Qual Health Care 18: 224–231. pmid:16415039
  27. 27. Evans RS, Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Lundsgaarde HP, Burke JP (1994) Improving empiric antibiotic selection using computer decision support. Arch Intern Med 154: 878–884. pmid:8154950
  28. 28. Karsies TJ, Sargel CL, Marquardt DJ, Khan N, Hall MW (2014) An empiric antibiotic protocol using risk stratification improves antibiotic selection and timing in critically ill children. Ann Am Thorac Soc 11: 1569–1575. pmid:25402656
  29. 29. Kofoed K, Zalounina A, Andersen O, Lisby G, Paul M, Leibovici L, et al. (2009) Performance of the TREAT decision support system in an environment with a low prevalence of resistant pathogens. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 63: 400–404. pmid:19091808
  30. 30. Thiel SW, Asghar MF, Micek ST, Reichley RM, Doherty JA, Kollef M H. (2009) Hospital-wide impact of a standardized order set for the management of bacteremic severe sepsis. Crit Care Med 37: 819–824. pmid:19237883
  31. 31. Buising KL, Thursky KA, Black JF, MacGregor L, Street AC, Kennedy M P, et al. (2008) Improving antibiotic prescribing for adults with community acquired pneumonia: Does a computerised decision support system achieve more than academic detailing alone?—A time series analysis. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 8: 35. pmid:18667084
  32. 32. Burke JP, Pestotnik SL (1999) Antibiotic use and microbial resistance in intensive care units: impact of computer-assisted decision support. J Chemother 11: 530–535. pmid:10678796
  33. 33. Evans RS, Pestotnik SL, Classen DC, Clemmer TP, Weaver LK, Orme J F, et al. (1998) A computer-assisted management program for antibiotics and other antiinfective agents. N Engl J Med 338: 232–238. pmid:9435330
  34. 34. McGregor JC, Weekes E, Forrest GN, Standiford HC, Perencevich EN, Furuno J P, et al. (2006) Impact of a computerized clinical decision support system on reducing inappropriate antimicrobial use: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc 13: 378–384. pmid:16622162
  35. 35. Nachtigall I, Tafelski S, Deja M, Halle E, Grebe MC, Tamarkin A, et al. (2014) Long-term effect of computer-assisted decision support for antibiotic treatment in critically ill patients: a prospective 'before/after' cohort study. BMJ Open 4: e005370. pmid:25534209
  36. 36. Pestotnik SL, Classen DC, Evans RS, Burke JP (1996) Implementing antibiotic practice guidelines through computer-assisted decision support: clinical and financial outcomes. Ann Intern Med 124: 884–890. pmid:8610917
  37. 37. Sintchenko V, Iredell JR, Gilbert GL, Coiera E (2005) Handheld computer-based decision support reduces patient length of stay and antibiotic prescribing in critical care. J Am Med Inform Assoc 12: 398–402. pmid:15802478
  38. 38. Stevenson KB, Barbera J, Moore JW, Samore MH, Houck P (2005) Understanding keys to successful implementation of electronic decision support in rural hospitals: analysis of a pilot study for antimicrobial prescribing. Am J Med Qual 20: 313–318. pmid:16280394
  39. 39. Tafelski S, Nachtigall I, Deja M, Tamarkin A, Trefzer T, Halle E, et al. (2010) Computer-assisted decision support for changing practice in severe sepsis and septic shock. J Int Med Res 38: 1605–1616. pmid:21309474
  40. 40. Chow AL, Lye DC, Arah OA (2016) Patient and physician predictors of patient receipt of therapies recommended by a computerized decision support system when initially prescribed broad-spectrum antibiotics: a cohort study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 23: e58–70. pmid:26342216
  41. 41. Dean NC, Jones BE, Jones JP, Ferraro JP, Post HB, Aronsky D, et al. (2015) Impact of an Electronic Clinical Decision Support Tool for Emergency Department Patients With Pneumonia. Ann Emerg Med 66: 511–520. pmid:25725592
  42. 42. Faine B, Mohr N, Harland KK, Rolfes K, Porter B, Fuller B M. (2015) Importance of Decision Support Implementation in Emergency Department Vancomycin Dosing. West J Emerg Med 16: 557–564. pmid:26265968
  43. 43. Kim J, Joo EJ, Ha YE, Park SY, Kang CI, Chung D R, et al. (2013) Impact of a computerized alert system for bacteremia notification on the appropriate antibiotic treatment of Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 32: 937–945. pmid:23361401
  44. 44. Evans RS, Pestotnik SL, Classen DC, Burke JP (1999) Evaluation of a computer-assisted antibiotic-dose monitor. Ann Pharmacother 33: 1026–1031. pmid:10534212
  45. 45. Pogue JM, Mynatt RP, Marchaim D, Zhao JJ, Barr VO, Moshos J. (2014) Automated alerts coupled with antimicrobial stewardship intervention lead to decreases in length of stay in patients with gram-negative bacteremia. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 35: 132–138. pmid:24442074
  46. 46. Chan YY, Lin TY, Huang CT, Deng ST, Wu TL, Leu H S, et al. (2011) Implementation and outcomes of a hospital-wide computerised antimicrobial stewardship programme in a large medical centre in Taiwan. Int J Antimicrob Agents 38: 486–492. pmid:21982143
  47. 47. Leibovici L, Kariv G, Paul M (2013) Long-term survival in patients included in a randomized controlled trial of treat, a decision support system for antibiotic treatment. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 68: 2664–2666. pmid:23743088
  48. 48. Buising KL, Thursky KA, Robertson MB, Black JF, Street AC, Richards M J, et al. (2008) Electronic antibiotic stewardship—Reduced consumption of broad-spectrum antibiotics using a computerized antimicrobial approval system in a hospital setting. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 62: 608–616. pmid:18550680
  49. 49. Rohrig R, Niczko EJ, Beutefuhr H, Bottger S, Klasen J, Fussle R, et al. (2008) Examination of computer assisted prescribing of an initial calculated antibiotic treatment. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 136: 63–68. pmid:18487709
  50. 50. Mullett CJ, Evans RS, Christenson JC, Dean JM (2001) Development and impact of a computerized pediatric antiinfective decision support program. Pediatrics 108: E75. pmid:11581483
  51. 51. Grayson ML, Melvani S, Kirsa SW, Cheung S, Korman AM, Garrett M K, et al. (2004) Impact of an electronic antibiotic advice and approval system on antibiotic prescribing in an Australian teaching hospital. Med J Aust 180: 455–458. pmid:15115423
  52. 52. Agwu AL, Lee CK, Jain SK, Murray KL, Topolski J, Miller R E, et al. (2008) A World Wide Web-based antimicrobial stewardship program improves efficiency, communication, and user satisfaction and reduces cost in a tertiary care pediatric medical center. Clin Infect Dis 47: 747–753. pmid:18680419
  53. 53. Burton ME, Ash CL, Hill DP Jr., Handy T, Shepherd MD, Vasko M R. (1991) A controlled trial of the cost benefit of computerized bayesian aminoglycoside administration. Clin Pharmacol Ther 49: 685–694. pmid:1905602
  54. 54. Yong MK, Buising KL, Cheng AC, Thursky KA (2010) Improved susceptibility of Gram-negative bacteria in an intensive care unit following implementation of a computerized antibiotic decision support system. J Antimicrob Chemother 65: 1062–1069. pmid:20215130
  55. 55. Shojania KG, Yokoe D, Platt R, Fiskio J, Ma'luf N, Bates D W. (1998) Reducing vancomycin use utilizing a computer guideline: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc 5: 554–562. pmid:9824802
  56. 56. Cook PP, Rizzo S, Gooch M, Jordan M, Fang X, Hudson S. (2011) Sustained reduction in antimicrobial use and decrease in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Clostridium difficile infections following implementation of an electronic medical record at a tertiary-care teaching hospital. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 66: 205–209. pmid:21059617
  57. 57. Linares LA, Thornton DJ, Strymish J, Baker E, Gupta K (2011) Electronic memorandum decreases unnecessary antimicrobial use for asymptomatic bacteriuria and culture-negative pyuria. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 32: 644–648. pmid:21666393
  58. 58. Staicu ML, Brundige ML, Ramsey A, Brown J, Yamshchikov A, Peterson D R, et al. (2016) Implementation of a penicillin allergy screening tool to optimize aztreonam use. Am J Health Syst Pharm 73: 298–306. pmid:26896502
  59. 59. Evans RS, Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Clemmer TP, Weaver LK, Orme J F, et al. (1995) A decision support tool for antibiotic therapy. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care: 651–655. pmid:8563367
  60. 60. Giuliano KK, Lecardo M, Staul L (2011) Impact of protocol watch on compliance with the surviving sepsis campaign. Am J Crit Care 20: 313–321. pmid:21724635
  61. 61. Brady PW, Brinkman WB, Simmons JM, Yau C, White CM, Kirkendall E S, et al. (2014) Oral antibiotics at discharge for children with acute osteomyelitis: a rapid cycle improvement project. BMJ Qual Saf 23: 499–507. pmid:24347649
  62. 62. Potasman I, Naftali G, Grupper M (2012) Impact of a computerized integrated antibiotic authorization system. Isr Med Assoc J 14: 415–419. pmid:22953616
  63. 63. Revolinski S (2015) Implementation of a Clinical Decision Support Alert for the Management of Clostridium difficile Infection. Antibiotics (Basel) 4: 667–674.
  64. 64. Tafelski S, Nachtigall I, Deja M, Tamarkin A, Trefzer T, Halle E, et al. (2010) Computer-assisted Decision Support for Changing Practice in Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock. Journal of International Medical Research 38: 1605–1616. pmid:21309474
  65. 65. Van Sise MA, Chappelle J, Figueroa R (2012) Improving the selection of recommended prophylactic antibiotics using an electronic medical record. Obstetrics and Gynecology 120: 1382–1385. pmid:23168763
  66. 66. Diasinos N, Baysari M, Kumar S, Day RO (2015) Does the availability of therapeutic drug monitoring, computerised dose recommendation and prescribing decision support services promote compliance with national gentamicin prescribing guidelines? Internal Medicine Journal 45: 55–62. pmid:25371347
  67. 67. Chan ALF, Wang HY, Leung HWC (2006) Incorporation of a gentamicin dosage calculator into a computerized prescriber-order-entry system. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy 63: 1344–1345. pmid:16809755
  68. 68. Hum RS, Cato K, Sheehan B, Patel S, Duchon J, DeLaMora P, et al. (2014) Developing clinical decision support within a commercial electronic health record system to improve antimicrobial prescribing in the neonatal ICU. Appl Clin Inform 5: 368–387. pmid:25024755
  69. 69. Schulz L, Osterby K, Fox B (2013) The use of best practice alerts with the development of an antimicrobial stewardship navigator to promote antibiotic De-escalation in the electronic medical record. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 34: 1259–1265. pmid:24225610
  70. 70. Chow AL, Ang A, Chow CZ, Ng TM, Teng C, Ling L M, et al. (2016) Implementation hurdles of an interactive, integrated, point-of-care computerised decision support system for hospital antibiotic prescription. Int J Antimicrob Agents 47: 132–139. pmid:26774157
  71. 71. Sintchenko V, Coiera E, Iredell JR, Gilbert GL Comparative impact of guidelines, clinical data, and decision support on prescribing decisions: an interactive web experiment with simulated cases. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 11: 71–77. pmid:14527970
  72. 72. Bourdeaux CP, Davies KJ, Thomas MJ, Bewley JS, Gould TH (2014) Using 'nudge' principles for order set design: a before and after evaluation of an electronic prescribing template in critical care. BMJ Qual Saf 23: 382–388. pmid:24282310
  73. 73. Caplinger C, Smith G, Remington R, Madaras-Kelly K (2016) Evaluation of a Computerized Decision Support Intervention to Decrease Use of Anti-Pseudomonal Carbapenems in Penicillin Allergic Patients. Antibiotics (Basel) 5.