An Evaluation of the Management of Asymptomatic Catheter‐Associated Bacteriuria and Candiduria at The Ottawa Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Asymptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) are common in hospitalized patients. They are associated with a low incidence of sequelae and morbidity, and in most patients resolve spontaneously on removal of the catheter. As a result, it is not recommended that asymptomatic catheter-associated bacteriuria or candiduria be treated with antimicrobial agents while the catheter remains in place because it may lead to the evolution of resistant flora. OBJECTIVE: To assess the current management of patients with CAUTIs with respect to antimicrobial therapy at The Ottawa Hospital and the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario. METHODS: A prospective observational study over a period of 26 consecutive days was conducted at The Ottawa Hospital (General and Civic campuses) and the University of Ottawa Heart Institute. Inpatients with an indwelling catheter, a positive urine culture and the absence of UTI signs or symptoms were assessed. Patients were followed for five days to determine whether antimicrobials were prescribed. RESULTS: From March 3 to March 28, 2003, 29 of 119 patients screened met inclusion criteria. Of these 29 patients, 15 (52%) were prescribed antimicrobials and were therefore considered to be inappropriately managed. Differences were observed between the appropriate and inappropriate management groups in terms of duration of stay to positive urine culture and whether yeast or bacteria were isolated from the culture. CONCLUSION: Antimicrobial agents were prescribed in over one-half of CAUTI cases, contrary to recommendations from the literature. Education is required to bring this strongly supported recommendation into clinical practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".