Oral intensity: reducing non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia in care-dependent, neurologically impaired patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this point-of-care study was to test the efficacy of a prevention-based oral care protocol in reducing non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia in a neurosurgical population outside the critical care environment. The researchers hypothesized that an enhanced oral care protocol would decrease the incidence of pneumonia. METHODS: This quasi-experimental, comparative study took place on an acute neurosurgical unit at a tertiary care trauma hospital in Western Canada. Subjects were non-intubated, care-dependent adults with a primary diagnosis of neurologic injury/insult, and at high risk for pneumonia. The prospective study group comprised 34 subjects; two subjects were excluded from the study analysis. The retrospective study group comprised 51 subjects. Data were collected for both groups for a six-month period. Retrospective data were collected through chart review. The prospective group were eligible neurosurgical patients who received the enhanced oral care protocol. Data collection tools were developed and diagnostic criteria for hospital-acquired pneumonia were determined. The pneumonia rates between subjects who received standard oral care (retrospective group) and those who received an enhanced, prevention-based, oral care protocol (prospective group) were compared. RESULTS: A statistically significant decrease in the pneumonia rate occurred in the prospective group (p < 0.05). DISCUSSION: An enhanced oral care protocol was beneficial in reducing the incidence of non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia. IMPLICATIONS: Nurses play a vital role in preventing hospital-acquired pneumonia. Foundational nursing practices, such as regular oral hygiene, are important aspects of care in preventing nosocomial infections and related costs, optimizing health, and promoting quality care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".