Effects of Clinical Pharmacist's Intervention on Perioperative Use of Prophylactic Antibiotics in Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Type I Incision Operation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of clinical pharmacist's intervention on perioperative prophylactic use of antibiotics in patients undergoing orthopedic type Ⅰ incision operation. METHODS: The perioperative use of prophylactic antibiotics in a total of 178 patients undergoing orthopedic surgery in Sichuan Provincial Orthopedic Hospital( hereinafter referred to asour hospital) from the first to the fourth quarter of 2013 was analyzed retrospectively and the rationality in antibiotic use in the first quarter vs. the fourth quarter was analyzed as well. RESULTS: The rates in prophylactic use,antibiotic use in the absence of indications,irrational choice of drugs,irrational preoperative medication time and postoperative course of medication decreased respectively from the 8. 64%,31. 82%,23. 08%,15. 38% and 1. 5 days of the first quarter to 64. 44%,24. 44%,0%,3. 93% and 1. 3 days of the fourth quarter respectively( P = 0. 01,0. 44,0. 00,0. 04 and 0. 01 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical pharmacists' pharmaceutical care and intervention contributed to improvement of the irrational use of drugs.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".