MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335962157 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofv133.979

Impact of an Antimicrobial Stewardship Program on Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis Conformity According to 2013 ASHP/IDSA Guidelines

2015· article· en· W2335962157 on OpenAlexaff
Audrey-Anne Longpré, Pierre-Olivier Monast, Rodolphe Kénol-Maurrasse, Silva Vujanovic, Daniel J. G. Thirion, Sylvie Carle, Chantal Guévremont, Charles Frenette

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAntimicrobial stewardshipConformityAntibiotic prophylaxisAntibiotic StewardshipAntimicrobialAntibioticsIntensive care medicineFamily medicineAntibiotic resistanceMicrobiologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Surgical site infections (SSI) represent a significant complication of surgery by increasing costs, length of stay, and mortality. Although surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis (SAP) decreases SSI, adherence to guidelines is often variable. We assessed the effect of persuasive interventions, delivered by an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP), on SAP global conformity improvement according to clinical guidelines. Methods. A multicenter, quasi-experimental study was performed, assessing global SAP conformity pre- and post- persuasive interventions delivered by ASP for nine different surgical services (general surgery, thoracic, cardiac, vascular, hepatobiliary/graft, orthopedic, obstetrics and gynecology, urology, and neurology). Pre- and post-intervention data were collected retrospectively using patients' files from April 2012 to March 2013 and from March 2014 to June 2014, respectively, to assess the effect of persuasive interventions delivered by ASP on SAP global conformity score based on choice of agent, dose, timing and prophylaxis duration, and to verify whether conformity varies between surgical services and aforementioned SAP criteria. Results. 1585 audited surgeries were included in the primary analysis. The global conformity score pre-intervention was 62.4% and increased to 77.6% post-intervention (p < 0.001). This difference remained statistically significant with sub-analysis per criterion, except for timing and readministration. A statistically significant difference was also observed in global conformity for all surgical services except urology, vascular, and obstetrics and gynecology. In the multivariate analysis, improvement in SAP conformity remained similar, accounting for potential confounders—notably sex, type of surgery (elective or urgent), the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, duration of surgery, surgical service, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and allergy. Conclusion. For surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis, changes in practice occur best through an antimicrobial stewardship program. Persuasive interventions delivered through an antimicrobial stewardship to the surgical team, including a collaborative publication of internal guidelines, improves surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis prescription. Disclosures. All authors: No reported disclosures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.197
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207