Perioperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis: An Educative Intervention Significantly Increases Compliance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implementation of guidelines in daily clinical practice is often suboptimal, mainly due to doctors' poor compliance with them. Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) is many times administered in patients undergoing elective surgery without proper indication or for longer time than needed. Aim of this study is to investigate the effect of a simple intervention on the compliance of the medical staff with the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) guidelines concerning PAP administration. METHODS: A prospective 3-month audit took place including routine surgical procedures (laparoscopic cholecystectomy, inguinal hernia repair and thyroidectomy). An intervention aiming to educate the medical staff was implemented. The intervention included the demonstration of a poster and the training of the medical staff over the guidelines. A re-audit recorded the changes in daily clinical practice. RESULTS: The compliance rate regarding the number of PAP doses significantly increased from 0% before the intervention to 68.8% after the intervention for hernia repair and to 53.1% for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The adherence rate in thyroidectomies increased from 25% to 50%, but without statistical significance. No significant difference was found for other parameters of PAP administration, namely the type of antibiotic used and the timing of the dose administration. Regarding secondary outcomes, hospitalization days were reduced, and cost of antibiotics was significantly decreased (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A simple intervention intending to educate the medical staff was successful in achieving significant improvement on the compliance rate with the PAP guidelines, highlighting the importance of promoting adherence to the already existing, well-established guidelines.
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 | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".