Prospective audit and feedback on antibiotic use in neonatal intensive care: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial stewardship programs potentially lead to appropriate antibiotic use, yet the optimal approach for neonates is uncertain. Such a program was implemented in a tertiary care neonatal intensive care unit in October 2012. We evaluated the impact of this program on antimicrobial use and its association with clinical outcomes. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, we examined 1580 neonates who received antimicrobials in the 13-months before and 13-months during program implementation. Prospective audit and feedback was given 5 days a week on each patient who was receiving antibiotic. Pharmacy and microbiology data were linked to clinical data from the local Canadian Neonatal Network database. The primary outcome was days of antibiotic therapy per 1000 patient-days; secondary outcomes included mortality, necrotizing enterocolitis, and antibiotic duration for culture-positive and culture-negative late-onset sepsis. The breadth of antibiotic exposure was compared using the Antibiotic Spectrum Index. RESULTS: Overall antibiotic use decreased to 339 days of therapy per 1000 patient-days from 395 (14%, P < 0.001), without an increase in mortality. There was no difference in duration of therapy in culture-negative or culture-positive sepsis, rates of necrotizing enterocolitis, or breadth of antibiotic exposure. Fewer antibiotic starts occurred during program implementation (63% versus 59%, P < 0.001). The use of narrow-spectrum agents decreased (P < 0.001) whereas the use of cefotaxime increased (P = 0.016) during program implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Daily prospective audit and feedback was not associated with a change in antibiotic duration or clinical outcomes, however there were fewer babies started on antibiotics, suggesting that additional interventions are required to inform and sustain changes in antibiotic prescribing practices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".