Changing Results to Change Results: Nudging Antimicrobial Prescribing for <i>Clostridium difficile</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Patients who test positive for Clostridium difficile by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), with a negative toxin enzyme immunoassay (EIA), are commonly colonized and do not require treatment. However, clinicians often treat based on a positive PCR result regardless of the toxin EIA result. We evaluated the clinical impact of a microbiology reporting nudge, changing from a report that included both assay results along with treatment recommendations to one that suggested clinicians consider C difficile colonization or early infection. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all adult patients admitted to a large multisite community hospital with a positive C difficile PCR result and negative toxin EIA from January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018. We examined total days of therapy (DOT) and impacts on clinical outcomes. Results One hundred ninety-nine episodes occurred preintervention and 165 episodes occurred postintervention. The mean DOTs per episode decreased from 13.6 to 7.9 days (difference −5.8 days; 95% confidence interval, −3.9 to −7.6) postintervention, with statistical process control charts suggesting special cause variation. Patients receiving no treatment increased from 6.5% to 23.6% postintervention (P &lt; .0001). No significant changes in subsequent toxin positive disease (9.0% vs 6.7%), colectomy (0% vs 0.6%), mortality (7.5% vs 12.1%), or length of stay (18.5 vs 16 days) were observed. Conclusions Microbiology reporting nudges raising the possibility of C difficile colonization were associated with altered prescribing, reinforcing a postanalytic strategy for invoking change. Decreases in antimicrobial prescribing occurred without increasing subsequent disease or other adverse outcomes, suggesting a safe strategy for decreasing unnecessary treatment of C difficile colonization.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".