Pneumonia Observational Incidence and Treatment: A Multidisciplinary Process Improvement Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little information is available on the types, causes, and treatment of pneumonia in intensive care unit patients in usual clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To characterize treatment of patients with presumed pneumonia in a tertiary care intensive care unit and to identify potential areas for improvement in care. METHODS: In a prospective, cohort study, the sample consisted of all consecutive patients treated in an intensive care unit during a 3-month period. For patients with presumed pneumonia, data were collected on incidence of pneumonia, diagnostic investigations, microbial isolates, and antibiotics prescribed. RESULTS: Of 194 admissions, 73 patients were treated for pneumonia: 47 had community-acquired pneumonia; 12 had hospital-acquired pneumonia; 12 had ventilator-associated pneumonia, both early (7) and late (5); and 2 had intensive care unit-acquired pneumonia. Approximately 71% of patients had microbiological tests performed. Among 54 microbial isolates, 51.9% were gram-positive bacteria, 31.5% were gram-negative bacteria, and 9.3% were Candida species. The most commonly used antimicrobials were quinolones (54 of 192 prescriptions) and cephalosporins (33); each patient received a median of 3 antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: Most cases of pneumonia were community acquired. The most common causative organisms were gram-positive cocci. Four quality improvement strategies were rationalization of antibiotic use during rounds, nurses' reporting of culture results, review of antibiotic appropriateness by a pharmacist, and redesign of the clinical information system.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".