Objective: We sought to evaluate whether implementing mandatory indications for outpatient electronic antibiotic orders or using encounter International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD10) codes more accurately reflected clinicians' charted diagnosis in encounter notes. Secondarily, we examined the appropriateness of antibiotic prescriptions.
Design: Cross-sectional study.
Methods: Mandatory indications were added to all outpatient electronic antibiotic orders on May 18, 2022. A randomly selected convenience sample of 1300 outpatient encounters with antibiotics from walk-in clinics was reviewed. Adjusted logistic regression was used to compare the congruence between encounter ICD10 code and charted diagnosis for encounters from July 15 to September 15, 2021 (pre-implementation period) to the congruence between encounter ICD10 code, charted diagnosis, and mandatory indication for encounters from July 15 to September 15, 2022 (post-implementation period). Antibiotic appropriateness based on charted diagnosis was also evaluated.
Results: Among 1300 outpatient encounters, congruence between charted diagnosis and ICD10 code significantly increased in the post-implementation period (87.7% (565/644)) versus pre-implementation (83.3% (540/648), adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.52; 95% CI 1.03-2.25). Congruence between charted diagnosis and mandatory indication during post-implementation was 95.2% (613/644) and >5 times more likely to be congruent than charted diagnosis and ICD10 code during pre-implementation (aOR 5.45; 95% CI 3.26-9.11). Antibiotic prescribing based on charted diagnosis was twice as likely to be appropriate in the post-implementation period (aOR1.99; 95% CI 1.32-2.98).
Conclusions: Mandatory indications within antibiotic orders show better congruence with charted diagnosis than ICD10 codes and may increase antibiotic appropriateness and congruence between ICD10 code and charted diagnosis.