Modelling of Johne's disease control options in beef cattle: a decision support approach

Johne's disease in cattle is a contagious wasting disease caused by Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis (MAP). Johne's infection is characterised by a long subclinical phase and can therefore go undetected for long periods of time during which substantial production losses can occur. The protracted nature of Johne's infection therefore presents a challenge for both veterinarians and farmers when discussing control options due to a paucity of information and limited test performance when screening for the disease. The objectives were to model Johne's control decisions in suckler beef cattle using a decision support approach, thus implying equal focus on ‘end user’ (veterinarian) participation whilst still focusing on the technical disease modelling aspects during the decision support model development. The model shows how Johne's disease is likely to affect a herd over time both in terms of physical and financial impacts. In addition, the model simulates the effect on production from two different Johne's control strategies; herd management measures and test and cull measures. The article also provides and discusses results from a sensitivity analysis to assess the effects on production from improving the currently available test performance. Output from running the model shows that a combination of management improvements to reduce routes of infection and testing and culling to remove infected and infectious animals is likely to be the least-cost control strategy.

Developing consensus on hospital prescribing indicators of potential harms amenable to decision support

Aim: To develop a list of prescribing indicators specific for the hospital setting that would facilitate the prospective collection of high severity and/or high frequency prescribing errors, which are also amenable to electronic clinical decision support (CDS). Method: A three-stage consensus technique (electronic Delphi) was carried out with 20 expert pharmacists and physicians across England. Participants were asked to score prescribing errors using a 5-point Likert scale for their likelihood of occurrence and the severity of the most likely outcome. These were combined to produce risk scores, from which median scores were calculated for each indicator across the participants in the study. The degree of consensus between the participants was defined as the proportion that gave a risk score in the same category as the median. Indicators were included if a consensus of 80% or more was achieved. Results: A total of 80 prescribing errors were identified by consensus as being high or extreme risk. The most common drug classes named within the indicators were antibiotics (n=13), antidepressants (n=8), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (n=6), and opioid analgesics (n=6).The most frequent error type identified as high or extreme risk were those classified as clinical contraindications (n=29/80). Conclusion: 80 high risk prescribing errors in the hospital setting have been identified by an expert panel. These indicators can serve as the basis for a standardised, validated tool for the collection of data in both paperbased and electronic prescribing processes, as well as to assess the impact of electronic decision support implementation or development.