Optimizing stress ulcer prophylaxis practices and reducing associated costs in intensive care units: a non-randomized controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study evaluated the use of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP), assessed the costs associated with inappropriate use, and highlighted the impact of clinical pharmacists on improving adherence to the SUP guidelines. Method: A prospective, non-randomized controlled study was carried out in two intensive care units (ICUs) of a training and research hospital between 1 June 2023 and 1 December 2023. Routine care services were provided for the observation group (OG) patients. In the guideline group (GG) patients, SUP management and routine care were performed according to ASHP guidelines. The physician and clinical pharmacist jointly evaluated the patients to determine the suitability of their SUP indications. Adherence rates to ASHP guidelines and the costs associated with nonadherence were evaluated. Results: A total of 196 patients were included in the study: 121 in the OG and 75 in the GG. A total of 54.6% of the patients were male, and the reason for hospitalization was mainly surgery (52.6%). SUP use was higher in OG (100%) than in GG (42.6%) (p < 0.001). The indication rate according to the ASHP guidelines was significantly higher in the GG group (100%) than in the OG group (54.5%) (p < 0.001). Dosage form adherence was significantly lower in the OG (0%) than in the GG (100%) (p < 0.001). The costs associated with proton pump inhibitor use for inappropriate indications and incorrect dosage forms were $60 versus $0 (p < 0.001) and $321 versus $0 (p < 0.001) in OG and GG, respectively. Overall, cost savings of $327 were achieved in the GG group. Conclusion: Inappropriate SUP use is common in the ICUs. Adequate adherence to guidelines and proactive involvement of clinical pharmacists may reduce inappropriate SUP in ICUs and the associated costs.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".