Changing practice: A nurse and physiologist-led tilt-testing service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tilt testing is used to investigate syncope, dizziness and falls. It may also be used to test a diagnosis of epilepsy. This article discusses the rationale for tilt testing, and the method used. Practical considerations and recommended practice are outlined. Interpretation of results is also considered, and the common conditions for which tilt testing can aid diagnosis. These include reflex syncope, orthostatic hypotension and postural or thostatic tachycardia syndrome. This provides the background to the redesign of a tilt-testing service at a metropolitan hospital. The physician-led service was inefficient, with frequent delays, overruns and cancellations. Waiting times were long, and adherence to recognized test protocols was variable. The service was redesigned to be led by nurses and physiologists and the test protocol set out in a formal policy document. Test reporting was improved, and service capacity increased. An audit carried out after 12 months showed that the new service had reduced waiting times, increased adherence to the test protocol and increased patient satisfaction. Safety was not compromised by the removal of direct medical supervision.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".