MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558003693 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofw172.686

Detailed Piperacillin-Tazobactam Use Audit in a North American Tertiary Care Hospital—Not Necessarily Wrong, Not Quite Right: Directions for Stewardship

2016· article· en· W2558003693 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stephen Lee, Michael Guirguis, Lynora Saxinger

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital EdmontonUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPiperacillin/tazobactamMedicineStewardship (theology)Antimicrobial stewardshipAuditPiperacillinTertiary careIntensive care medicineAntibiotic StewardshipTazobactamEmergency medicineFamily medicineAntibioticsMicrobiologyAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Antimicrobial resistance is a global concern and stewardship programs have been recommended as an evidence based method of improving prescribing. Piperacillin-tazobactam (PT) is the most common parenteral broad spectrum agent used in Canadian hospitals, increasing more than 10-fold from 2002 to 2014 (28.17 DDD/1000 to 295.46 DDD/1000 discharges). Given this increase and PT's broad spectrum, we decided to assess PT as a stewardship target. Methods. A prospective audit was performed, on all PT orders on adult inpatients 3 July–29 July 2015 at a large teaching tertiary hospital (651 adult beds) with chart review for demographics, clinical parameters, rationale for PT initiation, antimicrobials, pertinent cultures, and outcomes. Two investigators assessed guideline concordance with standard provincial guidelines, and whether concordant use was optimal (based on local guidelines suggesting other agents as first line), with resolution of differences by consensus review. Results. Of 149 new PT starts assessed, 64% were guideline concordant, 23%were not guideline concordant, and 13% were suboptimal, with services shown in graph. Of these, 49% consisted of one PT dose (primarily prescribed by ER and Medicine, 7/17 each). Thirty percent of PT use was not streamlined with culture receipt (62% ICU, 27% medical, and 11% surgical.) Common reasons for “suboptimal” usage included: no need for Gram-negative/anaerobic or anti-pseudomonal coverage, need for blood brain barrier penetration. Clinical and microbiologic data, and hospital PT use trends will be presented. See the figures. Conclusion. Overall, at least one third (given the broad interpretation of “appropriate” and “optimal” by local guidelines) of prescriptions would have benefited from a stewardship intervention, which would create an average of 8.7 PT assessments and 2.9 interventions per weekday for the duration of our study. “One-time” nonconcordant use was common, possibly arising from a defensive approach to initially unclear clinical diagnoses. Other areas for improvement include using guidelines for empiric therapy, ordering pertinent cultures, and streamlining. These data demonstrate a need to develop a range of PT stewardship interventions in hospital settings. 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.341 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsFrench-language works237,207