Risk Factors for Colonization With Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci in a Melbourne Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine risk factors for colonization with vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) in a hospital outbreak. DESIGN: Outbreak investigation and case-control study. SETTING: A referral teaching hospital in Melbourne, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Cases were inpatients colonized (with or without clinical disease) with VRE between July 26 and November 28, 1998; controls were hospitalized patients without VRE. METHODS: Five cases of VRE were identified between July 26 and November 8, 1998, by growth of VRE from various sites. Active case finding by cultures of rectal swabs from patients surveyed in wards was commenced on July 26, after the first isolate of VRE. RESULTS: There were 19 cases and 66 controls. All the VRE identified were vanB, and all were Enterococcus faecium. One molecular type predominated (18/19 cases). In a logistic-regression model, being on the same ward as a VRE case was the highest risk factor (odds ratio [OR], 82; 95% confidence interval [CI95], 5.7-1,176; P=.001). Having more than five antibiotics (OR, 11.9; CI95 1.1-129.6; P<.05), use of metronidazole (OR, 10.9; CI95, 1.7-69.8; P=.01), and being a medical patient (OR, 8.1; CI95, 1.4-47.6; P<.05) also were significant. Intensive care unit admission was associated with decreased risk (OR, 0.1; CI95, 0.01-0.8; P<.05). CONCLUSION: Our findings are consistent with an acute hospital outbreak. Monitoring and control of antibiotic use, particularly metronidazole, may reduce VRE in our hospital. Ongoing surveillance and staff education also are necessary.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".