Impact of a mobile decision support tool on antimicrobial stewardship indicators in St. John’s, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Inappropriate antibiotic use contributes to antimicrobial resistance. The SpectrumTM app provides antibiotic decision support, based on local antimicrobial resistance rates. We determined the impact of regional implementation of the app on inpatient antimicrobial appropriateness, inpatient antimicrobial usage (AMU), population-based Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) rates and cost, using a retrospective, before and after quasi-experimental design, including a one-year study period. METHODS: The SpectrumTM app was released to prescribers in February, 2019. We performed two one-day inpatient point prevalence surveys using the National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey tool, six months before (June 25, 2018) and six months after (June 25, 2019) app dissemination. Inpatient AMU in Defined Daily Dose/1000 patient days and CDI incidence were compared, before and after app dissemination. RESULTS: The pre-survey included 184 prescriptions, and the post-survey included 197 prescriptions. Appropriateness was 97/176 (55.1%) pre, and 126/192 (65.6%) post (+10.5%, p = 0.051). Inpatient AMU declined by 6.6 DDD/1000 patient days per month, and CDI declined by 0.3 cases per month. Cost savings associated with reduced AMU were $403.98/bed/year and associated with reduced CDI were $82,078/year. CONCLUSION: We observed improvement in antimicrobial stewardship indicators following SpectrumTM implementation. We cannot determine the cause of these improvements.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".