Who Can Have Parenteral Antibiotics at Home?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The benefits of treating children at home or in an ambulatory setting have been well documented. We aimed to describe the characteristics and evaluate the outcomes of children with moderate/severe cellulitis treated at home with intravenous (IV) ceftriaxone via direct referral from the Emergency Department to a hospital-in-the-home (HITH) program. METHODS: Patients aged 3 months to 18 years with moderate/severe cellulitis referred from a tertiary pediatric Emergency Department to HITH from September 2012 to January 2014 were prospectively identified. Data collection included demographics, clinical features, microbiological characteristics and outcomes. To ensure home treatment did not result in inferior outcomes, these patients were retrospectively compared with patients who were hospitalized for IV flucloxacillin, the standard-of-care over the same period. The primary outcome was home treatment failure necessitating hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included antibiotic changes, complications, length of stay and cost. RESULTS: Forty-one (28%) patients were treated on HITH and 103 (72%) were hospitalized. Compared with hospitalized patients, HITH patients were older (P < 0.01) and less likely to have periorbital cellulitis (P = 0.01) or fever (P = 0.04). There were no treatment failures under HITH care. The rate of antibiotic changes was similar in both groups (5% vs. 7%, P = 0.67), as was IV antibiotic duration (2.3 vs. 2.5 days, P = 0.23). CONCLUSION: Older children with moderate/severe limb cellulitis without systemic symptoms can be treated at home. To ascertain if this practice can be applied more widely, a comparative prospective, ideally randomized, study is needed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".