1135. The 2018 Global Point Prevalence Survey of Antimicrobial Consumption and Resistance: Pediatric Results from 26 Canadian Hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Inappropriate antimicrobial use (AMU) is strongly associated with antimicrobial resistance. The Global Point Prevalence Survey (Global-PPS) is a standardized tool that is used worldwide to characterize inpatient AMU. We report pediatric results from 26 Canadian hospitals that participated in the Global-PPS in 2018. Methods The survey was completed by each site on the Global-PPS website for all patients aged 0–17 years hospitalized in a neonatal or pediatric ward on a chosen day between January and December 2018. Data collected included ward type, demographics, antimicrobials prescribed, diagnosis, type of indication (community-acquired [CA] vs. healthcare-associated [HA]) and type of therapy (empiric vs. targeted). Quality indicators included guideline compliance, medical record documentation of diagnosis, antimicrobial stop/review date, and surgical prophylaxis (SP) duration. Results Of the 26 sites, 23 were mixed and 3 were pediatric hospitals, with data on 767 inpatients. Overall, 25.8% (n = 198) of patients received at least one antimicrobial, and 21.9% (n = 168) were on at least one antibiotic. The highest AMU was found in Hematology-Oncology (84%), Pediatric Intensive Care (55.3%) and surgical (42.1%) units. Of the 330 antimicrobial prescriptions, 40.9% were for CA infections, 23% for medical prophylaxis, 20% for HA infections and 2.7% for SP. The most commonly treated infections were sepsis (16%) and lower respiratory tract infection (12.1%). The top five prescribed antibiotics were aminopenicillins (20.4%), aminoglycosides (16.1%), third-generation cephalosporins (15.4%), piperacillin–tazobactam (7.5%) and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (7.5%). Diagnosis and stop/review date were documented for 88.1% and 65.1% of prescriptions, respectively. Compliance to local guidelines was found in 91.5% of therapies. SP exceeded 24 hours in 88.9% of courses. Conclusion The Global-PPS generated Canada-wide data on inpatient pediatric AMU, which will allow hospitals to benchmark and develop local quality improvement interventions to enhance appropriate AMU. Targets for improvement include suboptimal antimicrobial stop/review date documentation and prolonged SP. 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 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".