Cited by 44Clostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchAntibiotic Use and ResistanceSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment

Impact of an electronic sepsis initiative on antibiotic use and health care facility–onset Clostridium difficile infection rates

Hiensch, Robert, Poeran, Jashvant, Saunders-Hao, Patricia, Adams, Victoria, Powell, Charles A., Glasser, Allison, Mazumdar, Madhu, Patel, Gopi·2017·American Journal of Infection Control

Abstract

Background Although integrated, electronic sepsis screening and treatment protocols are thought to improve patient outcomes, less is known about their unintended consequences. We aimed to determine if the introduction of a sepsis initiative coincided with increases in broad-spectrum antibiotic use and health care facility-onset (HCFO) Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) rates. Methods We used interrupted time series data from a large, tertiary, urban academic medical center including all adult inpatients on 4 medicine wards (June 2011-July 2014). The main exposure was implementation of the sepsis screening program; the main outcomes were the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics (including 3 that were part of an order set designed for the sepsis initiative) and HCFO CDI rates. Segmented regression analyses compared outcomes in 3 time segments: before (11 months), during (14 months), and after (12 months) implementation of a sepsis initiative. Results Antibiotic use and HFCO CDI rates increased during the period of implementation and the period after implementation compared with baseline; these increases were highest in the period after implementation (level change, 50.4 days of therapy per 1,000 patient days for overall antibiotic use and 10.8 HCFO CDIs per 10,000 patient days; P Conclusions The implementation of an electronic sepsis screening and treatment protocol coincided with increased broad-spectrum antibiotic use and HCFO CDIs. Because these protocols are increasingly us…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajic.2017.04.005

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hiensch, R., Poeran, J., Saunders-Hao, P., Adams, V., Powell, C. A., Glasser, A., Mazumdar, M., & Patel, G.
Affiliations
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
  • Mount Sinai Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Hiensch, Robert
Venue
American Journal of Infection Control
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-10
Volume
45
Issue
10
Pages
1091-1100
ISSN
0196-6553 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2623328783
Cited by
44
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1
FWCI
4.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Infection Control (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Clostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
sepsis screening, electronic health records, broad-spectrum antibiotics, Clostridium difficile infection, antibiotic stewardship, inpatient antibiotic use
MeSH terms
Academic Medical Centers, Antimicrobial Stewardship, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Clostridium Infections, Drug Utilization, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Sepsis, Young Adult, Interrupted Time Series Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review