Hospital-wide Rollout of Antimicrobial Stewardship: A Stepped-Wedge Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objective was to rigorously evaluate the impact of an antimicrobial stewardship audit-and-feedback intervention, via a stepped-wedge randomized trial. An effective intensive care unit (ICU) audit-and-feedback program was rolled out to 6 non-ICU services in a randomized sequence. The primary outcome was targeted antimicrobial utilization, using a negative binomial regression model to assess the impact of the intervention while accounting for secular and seasonal trends. The intervention was successfully transitioned, with high volumes of orders reviewed, suggestions made, and recommendations accepted. Among patients meeting stewardship review criteria, the intervention was associated with a large reduction in targeted antimicrobial utilization (-21%, P = .004); however, there was no significant change in targeted antibiotic use among all admitted patients (-1.2%, P = .9), and no reductions in overall costs and microbiologic outcomes. An ICU day 3 audit-and-feedback program can be successfully expanded hospital-wide, but broader benefits on non-ICU wards may require interventions earlier in the course of treatment.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".