Standardizing Umbilical Catheter Usage in Preterm Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Absence of guidelines on umbilical arterial catheter (UAC) and umbilical venous catheter (UVC) use and inability to predict the hospital course may sway the frontline staff to overuse umbilical catheters in preterm infants. Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility of implementing guidelines standardizing the use of umbilical catheters and its impact on the incidence of sepsis and resource use. METHODS: All inborn infants delivered at <33 weeks' gestation and admitted to the NICU were included in this quality improvement study. The primary outcome was proportion of infants receiving umbilical catheters. Secondary outcomes were central venous catheter (CVC) use and central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI). RESULTS: The proportion of infants receiving UACs and UVCs was significantly lower in postintervention (sustainment) phase than in the preintervention phase (93 [42.3%] vs 52 [23.6%], P = .0001) and (137 [62.6%] vs 93 [42.3%], P = .0001), respectively. There was no corresponding increase in the proportion of infants receiving peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) or surgical CVCs (SCVCs) during the sustainment phase. There was a significant reduction in the proportion of infants receiving CVCs (UVC, PICC, and SCVC) in the sustainment phase. The incidence of CLABSI was similar in the preintervention and sustainment phases. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of guidelines standardizing the use of umbilical catheters in the NICU is feasible. Fewer infants were exposed to the risk of UVC or UAC, and fewer resources were used.
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 | 0.010 | 0.051 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".