Impact of Removal of Automatic 7-Day Stop Orders for Inpatient Antimicrobials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Automatic discontinuation of antimicrobial orders after a prespecified duration of therapy has been adopted as a strategy for reducing excess days of therapy (DOT) as part of antimicrobial stewardship efforts. Automatic stop orders have been shown to decrease antimicrobial DOT. However, inadvertent treatment interruptions may occur as a result, potentially contributing to adverse patient outcomes. To evaluate the effects of this practice, we examined the impact of the removal of an electronic 7-day ASO program on hospitalized patients. Methods: We performed a quasi-experimental study on inpatients in 3 acute-care academic hospitals. In the preintervention period (automatic stop orders present; January 1, 2016, to February 28, 2017), we had an electronic dashboard to identify and intervene on unintentionally missed doses. In the postintervention period (April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018), the automatic stop orders were removed. We compared the primary outcome, DOT per 1,000 patient days (PD) per month, for patients in the automatic stop orders present and absent periods. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare median monthly DOT/1,000 PD. Interrupted time series analysis (Prais-Winsten model) was used to compared trends in antibiotic DOT/1,000 PD and the immediate impact of the automatic stop order removal. Manual chart review on a subset of 300 patients, equally divided between the 2 periods, was performed to assess for unintentionally missed doses. Results: In the automatic stop order period, a monthly median of 644.5 antibiotic DOT/1,000 PD were administered, compared to 686.2 DOT/1,000 PD in the period without automatic stop orders ( P < .001) (Fig. 1). Using interrupted time series analysis, there was a nonsignificant increase by 46.7 DOT/1,000 PD (95% CI, 40.8 to 134.3) in the month immediately following removal of automatic stop orders ( P = .28) (Fig. 2). Even though the slope representing monthly change in DOT/1,000 PD increased in the period without automatic stop orders compared to the period with automatic stop orders, it was not statistically significant ( P = .41). Manual chart abstraction revealed that in the period with automatic stop orders, 9 of 150 patients had 17 unintentionally missed days of therapy, whereas none (of 150 patients) in the period without automatic stop orders did. Conclusions: Following removal of the automatic stop orders, there was an overall increase in antibiotic use, although the change in monthly trend of antibiotic use was not significantly different. Even with a dashboard to identify missed doses, there was still a risk of unintentionally missed doses in the period with automatic stop orders. Therefore, this risk should be weighed against the modest difference in antibiotic utilization garnered from automatic stop orders. Funding: None Disclosures: None
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".