Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy and Judicious Use of Pediatric Emergency Resources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pediatric returns to the emergency department (RTED) vary between 3% and 13% of the total ED volume of visits. However, the incidence and contribution of scheduled RTED on pediatric emergency department (PED) utilization is less clear. Antimicrobial stewardship programs on inpatient wards have been shown to improve judicious use of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) in upon discharge. The implementation of such programs in PEDs has yet to be reported. The objectives of this study are to quantify the burden of scheduled RTED for OPAT on PED utilization and to examine how frequently OPAT use are supported by published practice standards for 3 common pediatric infections-cellulitis, pneumonia, and urinary tract infections. METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study of all visits made to the British Columbia Children's Hospital PED from May 1, 2012, to April 30, 2013. We identified scheduled RTEDs and characterized those associated with OPAT use with regard to their measures of PED utilization and clinical features. RESULTS: Of 3904 RTED visits, 1310 (33.6%) were scheduled, of which 1029 were OPAT related. Among the latter, 749 RTEDs (69%) were for cellulitis, pneumonia, or urinary tract infections. The median length of stay for OPAT-related RTEDs was 2.0 hours. For 75 (24%) of 317 index visits and 213 (28%) of 749 subsequent RTEDs, oral antibiotic therapy would have been an appropriate option and OPAT could have been avoided. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that OPAT poses a sizable burden on PED utilization, with a proportion of them potentially preventable.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".