↓ Skip to main content

The antibiotic checklist: an observational study of the discrepancy between reported and actually performed checklist items

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The antibiotic checklist: an observational study of the discrepancy between reported and actually performed checklist items
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2878-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frederike V. van Daalen, Marlies E. J. L. Hulscher, Cas Minderhoud, Jan M. Prins, Suzanne E. Geerlings

Abstract

Checklists are increasingly used to measure quality of care. Recently we implemented an antibiotic checklist in nine Dutch hospitals and showed that use of the checklist resulted in more appropriate antibiotic use. While more appropriate antibiotic use was associated with a reduction in length of stay, use of the checklist in itself was not. In the current study we explored discrepancies between reported and actually performed checklist items at the patient level to test the validity of checklist answers, to evaluate whether discrepancies between reported and actually performed checklist items could explain the lack of effect of checklist use on length of stay, and to identify missed opportunities for performance per checklist item. Checklist answers represented reported performance. Actual performance was assessed by data from the patients' medical files. Reported and actually performed checklist items could be 'both YES'; 'both NO'; 'YES reported, NOT actually performed'; or 'NO reported, YES actually performed'. We determined an overall 'both YES' score per checklist, and used mixed models to evaluate whether an association existed between this overall score and patient's length of hospital stay. Finally, we analysed whether the items that were not actually performed, could have been performed. Between January and October 2015 physicians filled in 1207 checklists. In total 7881 items were checked. Most items were 'both YES' (3392/7881, 43.0%) or 'both NO' (2601/7881, 33.0%). The number of 'YES reported, NOT actually performed' items was 1628/7881 (20.7%) compared to 260/7881 (3.3%) 'NO reported, YES actually performed' items. The level of discrepancy between reported and actually performed items differed per checklist item. The item 'prescribe antibiotic treatment according to the local guideline' had the highest percentage of 'YES reported, NOT actually performed' items, namely 45.1%. A higher overall 'both YES' score of the checklist was significantly associated with a shorter length of hospital stay. Of all checklist items 21.8% were not performed while they could have been performed. Checklist answers do not accurately assess actual provided care. As actual performance of the antibiotic checklist items is associated with length of stay, efforts to increase actual performance appear to be justified.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 42%
Researcher 2 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 17%
Psychology 1 8%
Social Sciences 1 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 3 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,342,177
of 12,627,642 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#444
of 4,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,675
of 382,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#72
of 654 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,627,642 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,700 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 382,404 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 654 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.