Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We applaud the authors for incorporating the use of difficult airway bracelets into their practice and sharing this information through their editorial.1 Bracelets and wristbands have been used and are considered standard of care for identification and other types of alerts, such as patient allergy, do not resuscitate (DNR) status, and fall risk, but have not been widely adopted for difficult airway. Alert bracelets have the advantage of traveling with the patient and are clearly visible during an emergency, when there may not be time to access the patient record. The comprehensive difficult airway program at Johns Hopkins introduced difficult airway bracelets in 1996 and the alert bracelets have been in use since.2 In addition to the alert bracelets, an alert was created for the electronic patient record to clearly identify patients with a known difficult airway. Any patient with an electronic alert or who experienced a difficult intubation received a bracelet that was worn throughout their patient stay. Most electronic records allow for the creation of alerts that appear at the top of the computer screen, and we encourage departments to include a difficult airway alert as an option. The Medic Alert Foundation provides medic alert ID bracelets that are widely recognized as well as registries for patients, which include difficult intubation. Especially during the coronavirus disease (COVID) pandemic, with the increased risk of unplanned extubation and possible need for emergent reintubation, clear dissemination of information about previous difficult intubation is very important, not only due to the increased morbidity risk to the patient, but also because of potential increased aerosol exposure risk to the airway provider during emergent airway management.3 Airway alerts in the electronic medical record and alert bracelets are important steps to disseminate this vital information. Several international airway societies, including the American Society for Anesthesiologists, the Society for Airway Management, the Difficult Airway Society, and the Canadian Airway Focus Group Difficult Airway Society, recommend the use of difficult airway bracelets. These societies recommend, in addition to alert bracelets, electronic medical record documentation and chart flags, written letters to the patient, and the use of airway registries to disseminate difficult airway information.4 This will allow tracking and communication, not only during the acute hospital stay, but after discharge as well and for any future hospitalizations. During the COVID pandemic, identification of a previous difficult intubation at the time of admission would allow early recognition and planning for airway management and potentially reduce both patient and provider risk. Lauren Berkow, MD, FASAUniversity of Florida College of MedicineGainesville, Florida[email protected]Arthur Kanowitz, MD, FACEPAirway Safety MovementHighlands Ranch, Colorado
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,032 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,012 | 0,011 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,363 | 0,213 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».