Early neonatal discharge guidelines: Have we dropped the ball?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine patterns of follow-up and prenatal education by family physicians and to assess whether practice patterns comply with the 1996 Canadian Paediatric Society/Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada (CPS/SOGC) guidelines for early neonatal discharge. DESIGN: Mail survey. SETTING: A community of 300,000 people who were served exclusively for obstetrical care by a tertiary care hospital that performs 5000 deliveries per year and provides an early discharge program (EDP). PARTICIPANTS: Family physicians who provide prenatal and/or newborn care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The timing of neonatal follow-up and parental teaching by family physicians. RESULTS: Thirty-two per cent of the respondents scheduled their first postnatal visits two or more weeks after early discharge. There was no significant difference (P=0.7) in scheduling of follow-up for babies who were part of an EDP compared with those who were not. Fewer than 20% of physician respondents provided antenatal education in preparation for early discharge. CONCLUSIONS: The 1996 CPS/SOGC guidelines for physician follow-up after early neonatal discharge and for anticipatory parental education are not being followed consistently; however, these guidelines were disseminated without reinforcement. Until further study supports a change in practice guidelines, appropriate implementation strategies must be employed to ensure compliance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".