MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2201964849 · doi:10.1155/2012/684891

Identifying Gaps in After-Hours Endoscopic Practices

2012· letter· en· W2201964849 sur OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Catherine Dubé, Robert J. Hilsden

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology · 2012
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBusiness

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In the present issue of the Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology, the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG)’s Clinical Affairs Committee presents the results of a survey regarding after-hours endoscopy staffing and practices, highlighting some significant and likely clinically relevant gaps (pages 871–876) (1). Essentially, there is a significant variation across Canadian provinces in access to specialized endoscopy staff, which was associated with variations in gastroenterologists’ satisfaction and raises concerns about the safety of after-hours endoscopic procedures in some Canadian centres. Muthiah et al (1) conducted a survey among clinical members of the CAG regarding their after-hours endoscopy practices. Survey questions addressed the type and intensity of nursing assistance, the access to other services and locations, such as emergency rooms and intensive care units, the physical location of procedures, the person in charge of decontamination and the frequency of after-hours procedures. Results were analyzed according to practice type (academic versus community based; adult versus pediatric care) and province. The survey results highlighted two key geographical variations. First, access to endoscopy nurses for after-hours, emergent procedures is not universal, which is in contrast to daytime procedures, which are typically performed in the presence of at least one endoscopy nurse (2). Notably, only 50% of British Columbia and 51% of Ontario respondents could access an on-call trained endoscopy nurse, while this was the case in more than 90% of respondents from the rest of the country. Alberta respondents, who reported a high level of satisfaction with their after-hours practices, could access an on-call trained endoscopy nurse 96% of the time. By definition, after-hours cases are more likely to require therapeutic interventions, to be more challenging and involve a greater risk of complications. Such cases, therefore, require optimal assistance, which includes the presence of a trained endoscopy nurse to prepare and handle the necessary instrumentation. In some other cases, well demonstrated in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, early endoscopy facilitates appropriate patient management and disposition (3). The second key finding pertained to after-hours decontamination practices. It is very concerning to note that, in provinces where endoscopy nurses tend not to be available on-call, endoscopists and/or residents may be directly responsible for endoscope cleaning and reprocessing. The absence of trained specialized staff for endoscope cleaning and decontamination appears to be a direct consequence of the absence of an on-call endoscopy nurse. In essence, this adds ‘insult to injury’ to this situation – not only are the most critically ill patients not receiving optimal, specialized endoscopy care but endoscope reprocessing under these circumstances may be substandard, putting all endoscopy patients (urgent and routine) at risk. The survey shows that in many parts of Canada, on-call endoscopy nurses are the accepted standard of care. On-call endoscopy nurses have been available at the three acute care hospitals in Calgary (Alberta) for more than a decade. There are clear benefits for the endoscopist in terms of working with a ‘known quantity’ when performing some of the most challenging and anxiety-provoking cases. There are clear benefits to the endoscopy units in terms of reduced equipment damage and costs from having the endoscopes cared for by experts. Finally, there are certainly clear benefits to the hospital because endoscopists are likely more willing to perform procedures that may expedite patient care and facilitate early discharge; for example, on patients with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. However, there can be downsides to having ready access to on-call nurses that need to be anticipated. The indication for on-call endoscopy can drift to include less urgent cases to the point in which common referrers, such as emergency rooms, medical teaching units and intensivce care units, come to expect essentially immediate service for all cases. For example, looking back at this past weekend, four to six gastroscopies and three to five colonoscopies were performed at each Calgary hospital. At the hospital that acts as the single site for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in Calgary, nursing overtime hours reached the point at which it was more cost effective to have two nurses scheduled for a regular 8 h shift on Sundays. Frequent call-backs can affect the well-being of nursing staff. The introduction of a regular Sunday nursing shift resulted in a halving of overtime hours, but also a significant decrease in nurses’ sick days. Clearly, resources and funding are issues for all facilities, but from the patients’ perspective, it is crucial that their procedures be undertaken by individuals with the necessary skill sets and equipment. Furthermore, the issue of staffing for endoscopic procedures should be addressed more holistically because there appears to be, in some cases, unnecessary staffing for some of the routine cases. For example, nonurgent diagnostic procedures only require the assistance of one endoscopy nurse, likely making the presence of an additional nurse in the room superfluous. The CAG’s Clinical Affairs survey (1) correctly points to a service gap in Canada. Standards should be set, stating that trained endoscopy nurses for after-hours procedures be universally available; that routine diagnostic procedures require the assistance of only one endoscopy nurse; and that endoscope cleaning and reprocessing should exclusively be the responsibility of personnel trained in decontamination.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,814
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,374

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,021
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0030,007
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,035
Tête enseignante GPT0,290
Écart entre enseignants0,255 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2012
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Journal of GastroenterologyMême sujetGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207