A systematic review of inpatient antimicrobial stewardship programmes involving clinical pharmacists in small-to-medium-sized hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASPs) have been widely implemented in large hospitals but little is known regarding small-to-medium-sized hospitals. This literature review evaluates outcomes described for ASPs participated in by clinical pharmacists and implemented in small-to-medium-sized hospitals (<500 beds). METHODS: Following PRISMA principles, PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched in early 2016 for English language articles describing implementation and outcomes for inpatient ASPs participated in by clinical pharmacists in small-to-medium-sized hospitals. Each included study was required to include at least one of the following outcomes: microbiological outcomes, quality of care and clinical outcomes or antimicrobial use and cost outcomes. RESULTS: We included 28 studies from 26 hospitals, mostly American or Canadian. Most cases (23 studies) consisted of time-series comparisons of pre-and post-intervention periods. Of the 28 studies analysed, 8 reported microbiological outcomes, 21 reported quality of care and clinical outcomes, and 27 reported antimicrobial use and cost outcomes. Interventions were not generally associated with significant changes in mortality or readmission rates but were associated with substantial cost savings, mainly due to reduced use of antibiotics or the use of cheaper antibiotics. CONCLUSION: As far as we are aware, ours is the first systematic review that evaluates ASPs participated in by clinical pharmacists in small-to-medium-sized hospitals. ASPs appear to be an effective strategy for reducing antimicrobial use and cost. However, the limited association with better microbiological, care quality and clinical outcomes would highlight the need for further studies and for standardised methods for evaluating ASP outcomes.
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 | 0.013 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".