Inappropriate Use of Intravenous PPI for Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in an Inner City Community Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are used for the treatment and prophylaxis of variety of acid peptic conditions including stress ulcers. There has been a persistent practice of their inappropriate use for stress ulcer prophylaxis. Purpose of our study was to measure the inappropriate use of Intravenous Proton Pump Inhibitors for stress ulcer prophylaxis and to estimate the financial burden. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective, analytic study from July 2008 to June 2009 in internal medicine department. Hospital pharmacy records were used to identify all patients who received IV PPI during hospital stay. Seventy-five percent of records were randomly chosen (n=1104). PPI application was defined as indicated according to AGA guidelines. RESULTS: Intravenous proton pump inhibitor (IV PPI) was prescribed for 68.5% of patients without any proper indication. The estimated cost of medication for inappropriate IV PPIS use during the study year was 18337 USD. CONCLUSIONS: A more rational use of PPI will have better impact on health care cost and is likely to add to patient safety. KEYWORDS: Inappropriate use of PPI; Stress ulcer prophylaxis; Healthcare cost.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".