MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406940475 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofae631.1856

P-1690. The relationship of prescriber role and timing of prescribing to antibiotic prescribing appropriateness at a tertiary academic hospital

2025· article· en· W4406940475 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Greidanus, Ryan Joseph LeBlanc, Dima Kabbani, Stephanie Smith, Karen Doucette, Cecilia Lau, Serena Bains, Karen G Fong, Jackson J Stewart, Teagan Zeggil, Justin Z. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntibiotic Use and Resistance
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTertiary careFamily medicineEmergency medicinePediatricsIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background There are limited studies examining antibiotic prescription appropriateness that compare trainees versus attending physicians or time of prescription in relation to working hours. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) prospective audit and feedback (PAF) was implemented in 2018 at a tertiary care centre targeting six restricted antibiotics (carbapenems, daptomycin, linezolid, and tigecycline). The agent, regimen, and duration were assessed by AMS pharmacists and/or physicians against institutional prescribing guidelines (expert opinion if not available) and recorded prospectively in the AMS quality improvement database. Real time written and verbal feedback were provided to the most responsible physician. Table 1 Baseline prescription demographics. Methods We examined all prescriptions subjected to PAF from 2018 to 2023, with the primary objective to assess prescription appropriateness for medical trainees versus staff physicians. Secondary objectives were to evaluate whether other variables including time of day (working vs off hours), weekday vs weekend, and the COVID-19 pandemic period (Mar 2020-May 2022) impacted appropriateness. Multiple logistic regression was used to determine factors independently associated with optimal prescribing of antibiotics. Institutional ethics approval was obtained. Figure 1 Odds ratios of prescription appropriateness for each independent variable (reference in parentheses). Results Overall, 3685 prescription audits were included in this study. Baseline prescription demographics are shown in Table 1. Of these, 1106 (32%) audited prescriptions were assessed by AMS PAF as not optimally prescribed requiring actionable AMS intervention. Prescriptions written by trainees were not less appropriate compared to staff (OR 1.27 [95%CI 0.97-1.66]). Off hours prescriptions had lower odds of being optimal (OR 0.81 [0.64-1.02], NS). Other secondary outcomes are reported in Figure 1. Prescriptions initiated by infectious disease (ID) had higher odds of being optimal (4.88 [3.68-6.55]). Conclusion In our cohort, we did not find a difference in appropriateness of restricted antibiotic prescriptions between trainees and staff, with a trend towards decline in optimal prescribing during off hours and weekends. ID had higher odds of optimally prescribing. Appropriateness improved over time and the COVID-19 pandemic did not have a negative effect at our center. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicAntibiotic Use and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207