Blood culture collection practices in NICU; A national survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Sepsis is the leading cause of mortality and morbidity in neonates. Blood cultures are the gold standard in diagnosing neonatal sepsis; however, there are currently no consensus guidelines for blood culture collection in neonates and significant practice variation exists in Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs) globally. Objective: To examine current practices in obtaining blood cultures in the evaluation of neonatal sepsis in NICUs across Canada. Methods: A nine-item electronic survey was sent to each of the 29 level-3 NICUs in Canada, which are equipped to provide highly specialized care for newborns. Results: Responses were received from 90% (26/29) of sites. Sixty-five percent (17/26) of sites have blood culture collection guidelines for the investigation of neonatal sepsis. Forty-eight percent (12/25) of sites routinely target 1.0 mL per culture bottle. In late-onset sepsis (LOS), 58% (15/26) of sites process one aerobic culture bottle, whereas four sites routinely add anaerobic culture bottles. In early-onset sepsis (EOS) in very low birth weight infants (BW <1.5 kg), 73% (19/26) of sites use umbilical cord blood, and 72% (18/25) use peripheral venipuncture. Two sites routinely collect cord blood for culture in EOS. Only one site applies the concept of differential time-to-positivity to diagnose central-line-associated bloodstream infection. Conclusions: There is significant practice variation in methods used to obtain blood cultures in level-3 NICUs across Canada. Standardization of blood culture collection practices can provide reliable estimates of the true incidence of neonatal sepsis and help to develop appropriate antimicrobial stewardship strategies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".