A National Survey of Critical Care Physicians’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions of Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Antimicrobial stewardship is a process designed to optimize antimicrobial therapy by ensuring patients get the right antimicrobials at the right dose and at the right time. Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) are increasingly being implemented in health care institutions, are required by some accreditation bodies, and have the potential for maximum impact in intensive care units (ICUs). We administered a survey to critical care physicians across Canada to better understand their knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions on the utility of ASPs in improving patient care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: We distributed a Web-based survey to physicians who attend in Canadian ICUs. Respondents were identified through the membership lists of multiple critical care organizations. Content validity, utility, clarity, and test-retest reliability were evaluated prior to distribution. Survey items assessed ASP knowledge, attitudes, and experiences. Attitudes toward ASPs were assessed on a 5-point Likert-type scale. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The survey was completed by 185 physicians, with a response rate of 29% (n = 185/634) for all physicians contacted. A majority (74%) of respondents reported that there was at least 1 component of an ASP at their institution. Most (86%) respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the patients in their ICU benefit from an ASP, with 81% reporting the ASP increases their knowledge of appropriate antimicrobial use in the ICU setting. Only 11% of respondents reported they felt that time spent interacting with the ASP team was an inefficient use of their time, and only 7% expressed concern that the ASP negatively affected their autonomy. CONCLUSION: Based on our survey results, Canadian intensivists are supportive of antimicrobial stewardship in ICUs and feel that ASPs provide a valuable service to both patients and clinicians.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".