A qualitative study evaluating barriers and enablers to improving antimicrobial use for the management of bacteriuria in hospitalized adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: The objective of this study was to explore barriers and enablers to improving the management of bacteriuria in hospitalized adults. Design: Qualitative study. Setting: Nova Scotia, Canada. Participants: Nurses, physicians, and pharmacists involved in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of bacteriuria in hospitalized patients. Methods: Focus groups (FGs) were completed between May and July 2019. FG discussions were facilitated using an interview guide that consisted of open-ended questions coded to the theoretical domains framework (TDF) v2. Discussions were transcribed verbatim then independently coded to the TDFv2 by two members of the research team and compared. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes. Results: Thirty-three healthcare providers from five hospitals participated (15 pharmacists, 11 nurses, and 7 physicians). The use of antibiotics for the treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) was the main issue identified. Subthemes that related to management of ASB included: “diagnostic uncertainty,” difficulty “ignoring positive urine cultures,” “organizational challenges,” and “how people learn.” Barriers and/or enablers to improving the management of bacteriuria were mapped to 12 theoretical domains within these subthemes. Barriers and enablers identified by participants that were most extensively discussed related to the domains of environmental context and resources, belief about capabilities , social/professional role and identity , and social influences . Conclusions: Healthcare providers highlighted barriers and recognized enablers that may improve delivery of care to patients with bacteriuria. A wide range of barriers at the individual and organization level to address diagnostic challenges and improve workload should be considered to improve management of bacteriuria.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".