Clinical Research: Comparison of Open Versus Closed Systems of Intermittent Enteral Feeding in Two Long‐Term Care Facilities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In the acute care setting, closed enteral feeding systems have been found to be cost effective when compared with traditional open systems. Because the majority of studies have been conducted in acute care, the following variables pertaining to the open and closed systems were studied in two long‐term care facilities: nutritional intake, formula waste, bacterial contamination, diarrhea, nursing time, nursing satisfaction, and cost. Cost included formula, formula waste, and administration sets. Methods: An experimental, randomized crossover design with quantitative and qualitative data was used on a sample of 36 patients, mainly brain injured, who were receiving intermittent enteral feeding. The study was completed in 7 weeks. At the onset, patients were randomly selected to either the closed or open system. Crossover occurred in week 4. In weeks 2, 3, 5, and 6, data collection occurred. Time motion studies of 20 nurses were completed in week 6. Twenty‐nine nurses completed the nursing satisfaction surveys in week 7. Results: No significant differences were found in the amount of formula infused and formula wasted. A significant difference (p = .001) in bacterial contamination was found, with a significant contamination rate of 78% in the open and 39% in the closed systems. No significant differences were noted in diarrhea. Time motion studies of 20 nurses revealed no significant differences. In the nursing satisfaction survey of a convenience sample of 29 nurses, nurses expressed more satisfaction with the open system than the closed. Cost analysis revealed that the closed system was more expensive at $7.85 (Canadian)/patient/d compared with the open at $4.78. Conclusions: Decisions relating to choice of enteral feeding systems for patients must include a thorough study of all pertinent variables. Significant differences between the two systems in relation to bacterial contamination and cost were found. The potential complications of bacterial contamination in open
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it