Abstract
Introduction The global challenge of antimicrobial resistances (AMR) requires the rational and responsible use of antimicrobials. Insights and knowledge about the local AMR levels and epidemiology are essential to guide optimal decision-making processes in antimicrobial use. However, dedicated tools for reliable and reproducible AMR data analysis and reporting are often lacking. Previously, we have developed a novel approach to AMR data analysis and reporting using open-source software tools. In this study, we aimed at comparing the effectiveness and efficiency of traditional analysis and reporting versus this new approach for reliable and reproducible AMR data analysis in a clinical setting.
Methods Ten professionals in the field of AMR that routinely work with AMR data were recruited to participate and provided with one year’s blood culture test results from a tertiary care hospital results including antimicrobial susceptibility test results. Participants were asked to perform a detailed AMR data analysis in a two-step process: first (round 1) using their analysis software of choice and next (round 2) using the previously developed open-source software tools. Accuracy of the results and time spent were compared between the two rounds. Paired student’s t-tests were used to test for statistical significance. Finally, participants rated the usability of the tools using the systems usability scale.
Results The mean time spent on creating a comprehensive AMR report reduced from 93.7 (SD ±21.6) minutes to 22.4 (SD ±13.7) minutes (p < 0.001). Average task completion per round changed from 56% (SD: ±23%) to 96% (SD: ±5.5%) (p<0.05). The proportion of correct answers in the available results increased from 37.9% in the first round to 97.9% in the second round (p < 0.001). The usability of the new AMR reporting tool was rated with a median of 83.8 (out of 100) on the system usability scale.
Conclusion This study demonstrated the significant improvement in efficiency and accuracy in standard AMR data analysis and reporting workflows through the use of open-source software tools in a clinical setting. Integrating these tools in clinical settings can democratise the access to fast and reliable insights about local microbial epidemiology and associated AMR levels. Thereby, our approach can support evidence-based decision-making processes in the use of antimicrobials.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was partly supported by the INTERREG V A (202085) funded project EurHealth-1Health (http://www.eurhealth1health.eu), part of a Dutch-German cross-border network supported by the European Commission, the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, the Ministry of Economy, Innovation, Digitalisation and Energy of the German Federal State of North Rhine-Westphalia and the Ministry for National and European Affairs and Regional Development of Lower Saxony. In addition, this study was part of a project funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement 713660 (MSCA-COFUND-2015-DP "Pronkjewail").
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Data were collected retrospectively and permission was granted by the ethical committee of the University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands under the number METc 2014/530.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data is available upon request
