Physician experiences implementing antimicrobial stewardship rounds in pediatric hospital medicine: An exploratory, qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: An antimicrobial stewardship intervention was implemented for pediatric medicine units using an in-person rounds-based approach to provide stewardship recommendations and education from an antimicrobial stewardship physician and antimicrobial stewardship pharmacist. Design Setting Participants and Methods: In this exploratory qualitative study, purposeful sampling was used to recruit participants for individual interviews at a tertiary- and quaternary-care referral center. Pediatricians and residents who attended ≥1 stewardship round were included. A semistructured interview guide was created focusing on perceptions of antimicrobial stewardship, personal experiences at stewardship rounds, and perceived impacts on patient care. Using a constant comparative analysis approach, codes were developed and collapsed into themes. Results: Overall, 8 pediatricians and 10 residents completed interviews. Qualitative analysis yielded 3 themes: insights into clinical reasoning, opportunity for growth and learning, and establishing and exploring professional relationships. The handshake-rounds approach encouraged participants to critically evaluate antimicrobial choices and to engage in discussion with the antimicrobial stewardship team. Participants felt validated at stewardship rounds and gained confidence prescribing antimicrobials. Face-to-face interaction reduced reluctance for some participants to consult infectious disease (ID) service; however, others worried that physicians may avoid ID consultation because of stewardship rounds. Conclusions: Participants found stewardship rounds to be an effective strategy for education and development of clinical reasoning skills for optimal antimicrobial prescribing-choosing wisely or choosing rightly. The effects of stewardship rounds on timing and frequency of ID consultation are interesting. Further research into important patient outcomes and consultation practices are needed locally, but our experiences may help others to reflect on the power of conversation and relationships in antimicrobial stewardship.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".