Outpatient Intravenous Antibiotic Therapy: The Vancouver Hospital experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From June 1, 1995 to December 31, 1997, 334 patients at the Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Centre (VHHSC) were referred to and screened for, outpatient intravenous antibiotic therapy. One hundred and ninety were accepted, 107 of whom were cared for under the VHHSC program and 83 of whom were discharged to continue intravenous therapy in their own health region. Thirty‐four of 144 patients not accepted for outpatient intravenous therapy, were screened by the Infectious Disease Service and Pharmacy, and were discharged on oral antibiotics. Peripherally inserted central catheters were employed in 61 of 107 (57%) patients, peripheral short catheters in 20 (19%), Hickman lines in 14 (13%), and Port‐a‐caths in 12 (12%). Ninety‐two of 107 patients treated in the VHHSC program completed their course uneventfully with resolution of the infection. The average duration of hospital therapy was 10.9 days versus 23.6 days of outpatient therapy. In 15 patients, home treatment was discontinued because of clinical deterioration: adverse drug reaction (n=2), phlebitis (n=2), unsuitable home environment (n=1), noncompliance (n=1), line‐related sepsis (n=1) and death due to unrelated causes (n=1). There were 15 adverse drug reactions overall in the total of 2534 patient‐days of therapy over 18 months. Cost analysis showed a cost of 12 cents on the dollar compared with inhospital therapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".