Are Enterally Fed ICU Patients Meeting Clinical Practice Guidelines?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 2003 Canadian clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for nutrition support in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients recommended early EN and maintaining a 45-degree head-of-bed (HOB) angle during EN administration. Current practices at University Health Network have not been examined with regard to these guidelines. The purpose of this study was to determine the proportion of mechanically ventilated, enterally fed intensive care unit patients meeting the CPG recommendations for early EN and HOB elevation. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study involving data collection in 2 parts. Early EN data were collected via chart review and HOB data through observation of HOB angle reader. Reasons for not meeting each recommendation were obtained when data were collected via chart review and feedback from nurses. data analysis was conducted using frequency distributions. RESULTS: sixty-six percent of patients met the recommendation for early en. of those not meeting this recommendation, the most common reason for the delay was hemodynamic instability (28.1%). for the hob recommendation, 4.9% of patients met the 45 degree recommendation, and 52.5% had an hob angle between 21 and 30 degrees. the most common reason for not attaining the 45-degree angle was reported as unknown (29.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of patients meeting clinical practice guidelines compares favorably to similar studies. In some cases, patients' clinical conditions or unit HOB angle protocol explained not meeting guidelines. However, there were cases where reasons for not meeting guidelines were unknown.
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 | 0.005 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".