Oxygen and Ventilator Treatment: Perspectives on Interprofessional Collaboration in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to explore perspectives on the collaboration between physicians and nurses managing oxygen and ventilator treatment of sick infants in a Norwegian neonatal intensive care unit.Methods and Findings: We performed a qualitative study using focus groups. We found that interprofessional collaboration concerning newborns on mechanical ventilation lacked co-ordination and was unsystematic. This led to inadequate utilization of the medical and clinical competency of the nursing staff. Nurses and physicians approached decision-making differently, and there was limited flexibility and dynamics in the allocation of responsibility between the professionals.Conclusion: Findings from this study indicate that nurses and physicians have the opportunity to improve the quality of care by developing high-quality communication, formulating plans together, and improving the co-ordination of the ventilator treatment. Further studies should develop and test interventions based on the professionals’ perception of relevant co-ordination strategies to improve mechanical ventilation and oxygen treatment to premature and sick newborn infants.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".