Assessment of Evaluation Tools for Integrated Surveillance of Antimicrobial Use and Resistance Based on Selected Case Studies

Regular evaluation of integrated surveillance for antimicrobial use (AMU) and resistance (AMR) in animals, humans, and the environment is needed to ensure system effectiveness, but the question is how. In this study, six different evaluation tools were assessed after being applied to AMU and AMR surveillance in eight countries: (1) ATLASS: the Assessment Tool for Laboratories and AMR Surveillance Systems developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, (2) ECoSur: Evaluation of Collaboration for Surveillance tool, (3) ISSEP: Integrated Surveillance System Evaluation Project, (4) NEOH: developed by the EU COST Action “Network for Evaluation of One Health,” (5) PMP-AMR: The Progressive Management Pathway tool on AMR developed by the FAO, and (6) SURVTOOLS: developed in the FP7-EU project “RISKSUR.” Each tool was scored using (i) 11 pre-defined functional aspects (e.g., workability concerning the need for data, time, and people); (ii) a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT)-like approach of user experiences (e.g., things that I liked or that the tool covered well); and (iii) eight predefined content themes related to scope (e.g., development purpose and collaboration). PMP-AMR, ATLASS, ECoSur, and NEOH are evaluation tools that provide a scoring system to obtain semi-quantitative results, whereas ISSEP and SURVTOOLS will result in a plan for how to conduct evaluation(s). ISSEP, ECoSur, NEOH, and SURVTOOLS allow for in-depth analyses and therefore require more complex data, information, and specific training of evaluator(s). PMP-AMR, ATLASS, and ISSEP were developed specifically for AMR-related activities—only ISSEP included production of a direct measure for “integration” and “impact on decision making.” NEOH and ISSEP were perceived as the best tools for evaluation of One Health (OH) aspects, and ECoSur as best for evaluation of the quality of collaboration. PMP-AMR and ATLASS seemed to be the most user-friendly tools, particularly designed for risk managers. ATLASS was the only tool focusing specifically on laboratory activities. Our experience is that adequate resources are needed to perform evaluation(s). In most cases, evaluation would require involvement of several assessors and/or stakeholders, taking from weeks to months to complete. This study can help direct future evaluators of integrated AMU and AMR surveillance toward the most adequate tool for their specific evaluation purpose.

Evaluating the utility of a Smoking Cessation Clinical Pathway tool to promote nicotine prescribing and use among inpatients of a tertiary hospital in Brisbane, Australia

IntroductionDue to the burden of tobacco-related illnesses among hospital inpatients, an evidence-based smoking cessation brief intervention tool was developed for clinicians working in hospitals in Queensland, Australia. The tool, called the Smoking Cessation Clinical Pathway (SCCP), is used by clinicians to support inpatient smoking cessation and manage nicotine withdrawal in hospital.AimsTo investigate the impact of completed SCCP on nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) prescribing and use, and to explore clinician involvement in smoking cessation interventions.MethodsA retrospective review was conducted to examine data regarding SCCP responses and NRT offering, prescribing and use. The statistical significance of the results was assessed using chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests.ResultsPatients with a completed SCCP were more likely to be offered NRT (P < 0.0001). NRT prescribing on admission and discharge was higher in patients with a completed SCCP (P = 0.001 and P = 0.027). Intention to quit had no effect on whether NRT was offered (P = 0.276) and NRT acceptance was higher for patients that intended to quit smoking (P < 0.0001).ConclusionsThe SCCP prompted clinicians to offer NRT to patients, leading to increased NRT prescribing and use. These findings demonstrate the utility of the SCCP to assist clinicians to promote smoking cessation among hospital inpatients.

The effect of clinical pathways utilization on total cost of care for the treatment of prostate cancer.

20 Background: Moffitt Cancer Center (MCC) has developed evidence-based cancer care pathways which are integrated into the Electronic Health Record (EHR). We retrospectively compared the 1 year (yr) total cost of care in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed prostate cancer (PCA) treated at MCC based on EHR tool utilization and pathway alignment. Methods: Using existing Cancer Registry data, we retrospectively identified all pts presenting with newly diagnosed PCA between 7/1/2015-6/30/2017 who received all 1st course treatment (tx) at MCC. Pts direct costs were tracked for 1 yr from the Cancer Registry “date of 1st contact.” Tx was categorized as either radiation (RT) +/- hormone tx (HT), surgery (S) +/- HT, active surveillance only (ASO), HT only, palliative care, chemotherapy (CT), or mixed (a combination of S, RT, or CT). Pathway alignment was either electronically tracked through the EHR pathway tool or determined through manual chart review for pts tx’ed off the pathway tool. Results: 477 pts met inclusion criteria, including men with: low or favorable intermediate (n=259); unfavorable intermediate, high, or very high (n=186); and metastatic (n=32) risk group PCA. The majority (n=396, 83%) had tx in alignment with a pathway. The major tx modalities on pathway were S-HT (n=139), RT-HT (n=113), or ASO (n=110) and off pathway were RT-HT (n=52, 64%), S-HT (n=10), or ASO (n=9). Overall, treatment in alignment with a pathway was significantly associated with lower 1 yr total cost compared to off pathway tx (p <0.001) with a mean difference of $5,500 per pt yr. Conclusions: Clinical pathway alignment was significantly associated with less aggressive therapy and lower 1 yr cost of care for PCA pts treated at MCC. Cost of care was highly associated with tx modality selected. Further analyses are needed to understand the association between pathway alignment, patient risk factors and tx modality selection.

Impact of a clinical pathway tool on appropriate palliative radiation therapy for bone metastases.

97 Background: Clinical pathways increase compliance with treatment guidelines, improve outcomes, and reduce costs. Guidelines recommend single fraction radiation therapy (SFRT) for palliation of uncomplicated bone metastases, but implementation is variable. We examined the effects of a clinical pathway tool on appropriate SFRT rates in an academic radiation oncology practice. Methods: Clinical pathways increase compliance with treatment guidelines, improve outcomes, and reduce costs. Guidelines recommend single fraction radiation therapy (SFRT) for palliation of uncomplicated bone metastases, but implementation is variable. We examined the effects of a clinical pathway tool on appropriate SFRT rates in an academic radiation oncology practice. Results: The final pathway was used in 38% of 723 bone metastases radiation prescription made since March 2016, with appropriate SFRT rates rising from 18% prior to implementation to 48% post-launch in cases where the pathway was used (p < 0.01). There was no increase in the appropriate SFRT rate for cases treated after March 2016 but not entered into the pathway tool as compared to cases prior to pathway tool implementation. Major reasons for rejecting recommendations included disagreement with life expectancy prognostication and patient convenience. The pathway increased physicians’ confidence regarding compliance with treatment guidelines and made it easier to find well-supported treatment recommendations. Workflow disruptions and the inability to handle nuanced situations emerged as limitations. Conclusions: Our experience demonstrates the utility of clinical pathway decision support for bone metastases in complex academic settings. Pathway use significantly increased appropriate care, more than doubling appropriate treatment rates relative to a synchronous group. Next steps include increasing the pathway’s ease of use, refining its prognostic abilities, and measuring related value effects.

DESIGN STANDARD IN HEALTH CARE TO FOLLOW OR NOT? AN INSIGHT FROM CLINICAL PATHWAY

Clinical pathway is a management tool utilized in hospitals in order to reduce variation in medical care as well as control health quality. Poor adherence to the clinical pathway documents most probably leads to deficiency in quality of care. This paper presents the result of an investigation for the role of clinical pathway document component (design) on the use of the clinical pathway tool in practice. We checked the content of three clinical pathway designs using the Integrated Care Pathway Appraisal Tool (ICPAT). Negative correlation between the compliance to ICPAT indicators and the completeness of third clinical pathway design has been obtained. Standard criteria in designing clinical pathway shows discrepancy which might be due to reluctances among the users to follow the lengthy procedure. In conclusion, user’s preferences need to be considered for more practical use of clinical pathway beside the standard documentation perfection in order to achieve its objectives.