Assessment of vancomycin use in chronic haemodialysis patients: room for improvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vancomycin is frequently prescribed for the management of infections in haemodialysis patients. We evaluated the appropriateness of vancomycin use in our chronic haemodialysis population. METHODS: Charts of all chronic haemodialysis patients who received vancomycin between 1 March 2003 and 1 March 2004 were retrospectively reviewed. Indication was assessed according to the modified Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee guidelines for vancomycin prescription. The prescribed dosing regimens were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 163 courses of vancomycin in 105 patients were assessed. Of all courses, 88% were considered to be initially appropriate, but this decreased to 63% once culture and sensitivity results were available. Use of vancomycin for the management of beta-lactam-sensitive organisms accounted for the majority of inappropriate use. The most common vancomycin-dosing regimen prescribed was 500 mg intravenously at each haemodialysis session (51%); however, considerable variability was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Although the initial indication for vancomycin use was generally appropriate, inappropriate continuation of this antibiotic, failure to obtain proper cultures to guide therapy and potentially subtherapeutic dosing regimens were some of the challenges identified. Centres providing chronic haemodialysis should take steps to optimize vancomycin prescription to improve clinical outcomes and reduce the risk of antimicrobial resistance.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".