Compliance with a Pediatric Clinical Practice Guideline for Intravenous Fluid and Electrolyte Administration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The occurrence of acute hyponatremia associated with cerebral edema in hospitalized children has been increasingly recognized, with over 50 cases of neurological morbidity and mortality reported in the past decade. This condition most commonly occurs in previously healthy children where maintenance intravenous (IV) fluids have been prescribed in the form of hypotonic saline (e.g., 0.2 or 0.3 NaCl). In response to similar problems at The Hospital for Sick Children (six identified through hospital morbidity and mortality reviews and safety reports prior to fall 2007), an interdisciplinary clinician group from our institution developed a clinical practice guideline (CPG) to guide fluid and electrolyte administration for pediatric patients. This article reviews the evaluation of one patient safety improvement to change the prescribing practice for IV fluids in an acute care pediatric hospital, including the removal of the ability to prescribe hypotonic IV solutions with a sodium concentration of < 75 mmol/L. The evaluation of key components of the CPG included measuring practice and process changes pre- and post-implementation. The evaluation showed that the use of restricted IV fluids was significantly reduced across the organization. Success factors of this safety initiative included the CPG development, forcing functions, reminders, team engagement and support from the hospital leadership. A key learning was that a project leader with considerable dedicated time is required during the implementation to develop change concepts, organize and liaise with stakeholders and measure changes in practice. This project highlights the importance of active implementation for policy and guideline documents.
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 | 0.028 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".