988
for both smartphone and desktop devices, suggesting that com- patibility with both types of technology is essential for the success of institutional apps. Moreover, UTI, RTI, and SSTI were the most commonly accessed topics on the antibiotic app. Not sur- prisingly, these are also the most common infections for which antibiotics are given in the hospital.13 While some may say, “Old habits are hard to break,” we were pleasantly surprised that providers accessed prescribing guidance for common infectious conditions. This suggests that they are seeking new knowledge or double-checking that their prescribing habits are consistent with institutional guidance. This study has several limitations. We were unable to track the
type of provider that accesses data. We considered adding a login feature to the app but feared that this would be a barrier to use; the impact of a login on app use would be an interesting area of research in the future. Additionally, we are unable to determine whether providers follow the recommended antibiotic guidance after accessing the app. This would best be ascertained from a review of cases in the pre- and postantibiotic app periods. Finally, our estimate of the number of unique users is likely an under- estimate because we used smartphone utilization as a surrogate, assuming that each person who accessed the app had accessed it at least once by smartphone. It is likely that some providers accessed the app from a desktop only. In summary, the antibiotic app is widely and increasingly
being used over time, suggesting that it is an effective tool to disseminate institution-specific antibiotic recommendations in our integrated health system. Additional work is needed to explore providers’ perceptions of the app and to determine whether its use has increased adherence to institutional pre- scribing guidance.
Supplementary material. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit
https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2018.135
Financial support. No financial support was provided relevant to this article.
Potential conflicts of interest. All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.
References
1. National Quality Partners playbook: antibiotic stewardship in acute care. National Quality Forum webiste.
http://www.qualityforum.org/Publications/ 2016/05/National_Quality_Partners_Playbook__Antibiotic_Stewardship_in_
Acute_Care.aspx. Published 2016. Accessed February 8, 2018.
2. The core elements of antibiotic stewardship for nursing homes. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website.
https://www.cdc.gov/long- termcare/pdfs/core-elements-antibiotic-stewardship.pdf. Published 2015. Accessed February 8, 2018.
3. Sanchez G, Fleming-Dutra K, Roberts R, Hicks T. Core elements of outpatient antibiotic stewardship. MMWR 2016;65:1–12.
4. Carey E, Payne KF, Ahmed N, Goodson A. The benefit of the smartphone in oral and maxillofacial surgery: smartphone use among maxillofacial surgery trainees and iPhone apps for the maxillofacial surgeon. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2015;14:131–137.
5. Payne KB, Wharrad H, Watts K. Smartphone and medical related app use among medical students and junior doctors in the United Kingdom (UK): a regional survey. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2012;12:121.
6. Payne KF,Weeks L, Dunning P. Amixedmethods pilot study to investigate the impact of a hospital-specific iPhone application (iTreat) within a British junior doctor cohort. Health Inform J 2014 Mar20:59–73.
7. Goff DA, Jankowski C, Tenover FC. Using rapid diagnostic tests to optimize antimicrobial selection in antimicrobial stewardship programs. Pharmacotherapy 2012;32:677–687.
8. Kullar R, Goff DA. Transformation of antimicrobial stewardship programs through technology and informatics. Infect Dis Clin N Am 2014;28:291–300.
9. Parfitt EC, Valiquette L, Laupland KB. When it comes to stewardship, it’s time to get with the programmers. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol 2015;26:234–236.
10. Moodley A, Mangino JE, Goff DA. Review of infectious diseases applications for iPhone/iPad and Android: from pocket to patient. Clin Infect Dis 2013;57:1145–1154.
11. Gabow P, Eisert S, Wright R. Denver Health: a model for the integration of a public hospital and community health centers. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:143–149.
12. Crutzen R, Roosjen JL, Poelman J. Using Google Analytics as a process evaluation method for Internet-delivered interventions: an example on sexual health. Health Promo Int 2013;28:36–42.
13. Braykov NP, Morgan DJ, Schweizer ML, et al. Assessment of empirical antibiotic therapy optimisation in six hospitals: an observational cohort study. Lancet 2014;14:1220–1227.
Heather L. Young et al
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140
