MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118940970 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.815

621. Reporting Behaviors and Perceptions Towards the National Healthcare Safety Network Antimicrobial Use (AU) and Antimicrobial Resistance (AR) Options

2020· article· en· W3118940970 on OpenAlexaff
Brian J. Werth, Thomas J. Dilworth, Zahra Kassamali Escobar, Alan E. Gross, Katie J. Suda, Jessina C. McGregor, Andrew M. Morris, Kerry L. LaPlante, Kristi Kuper

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntibiotic Use and Resistance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersShionogiPfizer PharmaceuticalsPfizer
KeywordsMedicineHealth careRespondentFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Antibiotic use (AU) and antibiotic resistance (AR; AUR) reporting to National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) is suboptimal by US hospitals. The Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists (SIDP) and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) conducted a survey of their membership to 1) Identify characteristics of US health systems that report AUR data 2) Determine how NHSN AUR data are used by health systems and 3) Identify barriers to AUR reporting. Methods An anonymous survey was posted on SurveyMonkey from 1/21- 2/21/2020 and links were emailed to SIDP and SHEA Research Network members. Data were analyzed in Excel and RStudio. Respondent and hospital data were reported as frequencies and percentages. Fisher’s Exact test was used to compare survey responses from NHSN AUR reporters to non-reporters. Results A total of 238 individuals from 43 states responded to our survey. Respondents were primarily pharmacists (84%), from urban (45%), non-profit medical centers (80%) with >250 beds (65%). 62% of respondents reported to the AU option while 19% reported to the AR option. Respondents not using software for local AU or AR tracking were less likely than those using any software for local tracking to report to AU (19% vs 64%) and AR (2% vs 30%) options (P< 0.0001). Among AU and AR reporters 41% and 54% used clinical decision support software to aggregate compile data for upload while 54% and 38% used their electronic health record, and 5% and 8% used another method. Over half of AU (56%) and AR (51%) reporters upload data manually. Regular use of the NHSN data analysis tools was reported by 36% and 9% of those reporting AU and AR data respectively. The most common barriers to reporting were related to technical issues (software, IT support, data formatting) and time/salary support. Among non-reporters, increased expectations to report and better software solutions were most commonly identified as the best ways to increase reporting. Conclusion Efforts to improve AUR reporting should focus on software solutions and increasing the utility of AUR analytical tools. Increasing expectations to report may also help to improve reporting rates. The lower rate of AR vs AU reporting suggests that interventions should also target the AR option. Disclosures Brian J. Werth, PharmD, Shionogi Inc. (Grant/Research Support) Kerry LaPlante, PharmD, Merck (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. (Research Grant or Support)Pfizer Pharmaceuticals (Research Grant or Support)Shionogi, Inc. (Research Grant or Support)

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.262 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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