Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T20:53:12.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

From Bottlenecks to Better Practices: Systemwide Electronic Clinical Decision Support for Blood Culture Stewardship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2026

Jessica Seidelman
Affiliation:
Duke University
Michael Yarrington
Affiliation:
Duke University Medical Center
Stefani Dubea
Affiliation:
Duke University Health System

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Introduction: In the setting of the BACTEC BCx bottle shortage in 8/2024, we established a clinical standard for BCx stewardship using evidence-based best practices. Specifically, we implemented clinical decision support (CDS) within the electronic medical record (EMR) across the health system to prompt reflection on the indication for BCx collection and discourage low-yield testing. Our primary objective was to compare blood culture event (BCE) rates before (8/2022-7/2024) and after (8/2024-8/2025) CDS implementation. Secondary objectives included comparing all-cause mortality, 30-day readmission, BCx contamination rates, antimicrobial use, central line–associated bloodstream infection rates, and hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile infection rates before and after CDS implementation. Methods: This study was conducted within an academic health system comprising 3 inpatient hospitals. In 8/2024, we integrated CDS into the EMR (Epic Systems, Verona, WI). (Figure 1) CDS was displayed whenever a provider ordered a BCx set. Providers were prompted to document the clinical indication for the BCx, stratified as high-, medium-, or low-yield based on the algorithm developed by Fabre et al. in the DISTRIBUTE study. If the selected indication was categorized as low-yield, the CDS displayed a message noting the likelihood of low-diagnostic yield and required additional justification documentation. Providers retained discretion to proceed with the order. We used an interrupted time series (ITS) analysis to compare BCE rates in the pre- versus post-intervention periods. Results: The preintervention period had a rate of 52.8 BCE per 1000 inpatient days compared to 46.5 BCE per 1000 inpatient days in the postintervention period (0.88 95% CI 0.87-0.89 p< 0.01). (Figure 2) ITS analysis demonstrated a significant decrease in BCE rate by 17.5% (95% CI -20.7%, 014.2%, P-value < 0.01) at the time of the intervention, but a significant increase in BCE rate of 1.0%% (95% CI 0.6%, 1.4%, p-value <0.01) in the post-intervention period. (Figure 3) We also saw a significant increase in days of antibiotic therapy and BCx contamination rates. (Figure 2) 37,418 BCEs were placed when the CDS was active. Of these, 22,994 BCE (61.5%) were ordered for sepsis. Of the remaining 14,424 BCE, 3,127 (22.0%) occurred for low-risk clinical scenarios. (Figure 4) Conclusions: We implemented hospital systemwide CDS during a critical BCx bottle shortage. While we saw an initial decrease in BCE rates, BCE rates increased following implementation. Specifically, many BCE occurred for low-risk clinical scenarios. Thus, while electronic CDS can be helpful, additional feedback mechanisms are necessary for persistent change in BCx stewardship practices.

A screenshot of a clinical decision support system for blood culture panel, categorizing scenarios by risk of bacteremia and detailing blood culture procedures.

A table comparing pre-intervention and post-intervention variables in healthcare settings.

A line graph showing blood culture event rates before and after clinical decision support implementation.

A pie chart showing the reasons for low-risk clinical scenario blood culture events.

Information

Type
Diagnostic Stewardship
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America