MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137278670 · doi:10.1093/cid/ciab256

Population-Wide Peer Comparison Audit and Feedback to Reduce Antibiotic Initiation and Duration in Long-Term Care Facilities with Embedded Randomized Controlled Trial

2021· article· en· W3137278670 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nick Daneman, Samantha Lee, Heming Bai, Chaim M. Bell, Susan E. Bronskill, Michael A. Campitelli, Gail Dobell, Longdi Fu, Gary Garber, Noah Ivers, Jonathan Lam, Bradley J. Langford, Celia Laur, Andrew M. Morris, Cara Mulhall, Ruxandra Pinto, Farah E. Saxena, Kevin L. Schwartz, Kevin A. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntibiotic Use and Resistance
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaWomen's College HospitalMount Sinai HospitalHealth Sciences CentrePublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialAuditConfidence intervalAntibioticsQuarter (Canadian coin)PopulationLong-term careEmergency medicinePediatricsInternal medicineNursingEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic overprescribing in long-term care settings is driven by prescriber preferences and is associated with preventable harms for residents. We aimed to determine whether peer comparison audit and feedback reporting for physicians reduces antibiotic overprescribing among residents. METHODS: We employed a province wide, difference-in-differences study of antibiotic prescribing audit and feedback, with an embedded pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) across all long-term care facilities in Ontario, Canada, in 2019. The study year included 1238 physicians caring for 96 185 residents. In total, 895 (72%) physicians received no feedback; 343 (28%) were enrolled to receive audit and feedback and randomized 1:1 to static or dynamic reports. The primary outcomes were proportion of residents initiated on an antibiotic and proportion of antibiotics prolonged beyond 7 days per quarter. RESULTS: Among all residents, between the first quarter of 2018 and last quarter of 2019, there were temporal declines in antibiotic initiation (28.4% to 21.3%) and prolonged duration (34.4% to 29.0%). Difference-in-differences analysis confirmed that feedback was associated with a greater decline in prolonged antibiotics (adjusted difference -2.65%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -4.93 to -.28%, P = .026), but there was no significant difference in antibiotic initiation. The reduction in antibiotic durations was associated with 335 912 fewer days of treatment. The embedded RCT detected no differences in outcomes between the dynamic and static reports. CONCLUSIONS: Peer comparison audit and feedback is a pragmatic intervention that can generate small relative reductions in the use of antibiotics for prolonged durations that translate to large reductions in antibiotic days of treatment across populations. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT03807466.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations38
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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