Assessing the utilization and impact of a newly established outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is a safe and effective alternative to hospitalization for many patients with infectious disease. The objective of this study was to describe the experience with a newly established formal OPAT program at a Canadian academic centre. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study including all patients referred to the OPAT clinic between July 2016 and June 2017 and a contemporary cohort of patients who received home parenteral therapy without clinic referral. A quasi-experimental design was used to assess the impact of the clinic on patient outcomes compared with a pre-intervention cohort of patients from 2012 to 2013. Results: Between July 2016 and June 2017, 334 patients were referred to the OPAT clinic; 33% of the patients visited the emergency department (ED), and 21% required readmission within 60 days. Compared with the clinic patients, urinary tract infection diagnoses were more common among the 39 contemporary patients who were treated with home parenteral antibiotics without OPAT clinic referral (51% versus 4%, respectively; p < 0.001) and treatment durations were shorter (median 10 days versus 42 days; p < 0.001). Compared with a pre-intervention cohort, OPAT clinic implementation was associated with a trend toward decreased ED visits (33% versus 43%; p = 0.07). On multivariable analysis, this translated to an overall adjusted odds ratio of 0.64 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.04, p = 0.07) for readmission and ED visits. Conclusions: The OPAT clinic served a high volume of patients in its first year of operation and may be helpful in reducing unfavourable patient 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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".