MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903359600 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofy210.202

189. Evaluating the Impact of Mandatory Indications on Antibiotic Utilization: A Retrospective Study

2018· article· en· W2903359600 on OpenAlexaff
April Chan, Mark Downing, Bradley J. Langford

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntibiotic Use and Resistance
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetrospective cohort studyAntibioticsIntensive care medicineEmergency medicinePediatricsInternal medicineMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mandatory indications for antimicrobial agents are recommended by a number of organizations to act as a force function, requiring prescribers to provide a reason for prescribing at the time of order entry. We evaluated the impact of introducing a mandatory indication field into electronic order entry for selected antibiotics on utilization of antibiotics at a large community hospital in the context of an established antimicrobial stewardship program. A descriptive analysis of the mandatory indication fields for the study antibiotics (intravenous and enteral clindamycin, ciprofloxacin, metronidazole, moxifloxacin, and vancomycin) for adult patients 18 years and above for 1-year (December 1, 2015–November 30, 2016) postimplementation was conducted. An independent t-test was used to measure the primary outcome of change in drug utilization of study and control antibiotics before (6 months pre) and after (12 months post) the initiation of mandatory indications. Drug utilization was calculated as days of therapy (DOT)/1,000 patient-days for both the study and control antibiotics individually and as a group. Oral amoxicillin/clavulanate and intravenous piperacillin/tazobactam orders which have no mandatory indications were used to examine any associated shifts in antibiotic utilization. A total of 8,399 orders were evaluated in the 1-year post-implementation period; of which, 4,572 were for study antibiotics. The preset mandatory indications were selected 30–55% of the time. For the primary outcome, there was a statistically significant decrease in DOT/1,000 patient-days for study antibiotics as a group pre- and postintervention (mean 100 vs. 82, P = 0.024) as but not individually. However, there was a statistically significant increase in DOT/1,000 patient-days for the control antibiotics (mean 78 vs. 91, P = 0.01), driven by the increase in piperacillin/tazobactam utilization. This study showed the moderate use of preset mandatory indications which suggests that the preset list of indications can be optimized. Furthermore, mandatory indications were shown to be associated with a reduction in study antibiotics utilization but may lead to shifts in usage to other nonstudy antibiotics. 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.832

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.377
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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicAntibiotic Use and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207