MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pushing boundaries in paediatric intensive care: training as a paediatric retrieval nurse practitioner

2007· review· en· W2012978728 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jo Davies, Fiona Lynch

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing in Critical Care · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingMedicineDirectiveLegislationIntensive careService (business)BusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditionally in the UK, the transportation of the critically ill child to a paediatric intensive care unit has been carried out by a medically led team of doctors and nurses. However, in countries such as the USA and Canada, appropriately trained nurse practitioners have proven to be competent in the transportation of these vulnerable children. This nurse-led team model has also been shown to be successful in the speciality of neonatal care in the UK. The impact of changes in the National Health Service (NHS) has led to an increased demand for the transportation of the child requiring paediatric intensive or high-dependency care, the lifting of restrictions on nursing practice and the reduction of doctors' hours in keeping with the European Working Time Directive. This has led to one NHS Trust in the UK developing the role of paediatric retrieval nurse practitioners (RNP): nurses who lead the retrieval team. The purpose of this article is to describe a pilot initiative to develop the role of RNPs. The comprehensive process of recruitment, training and assessment of competency will be detailed. Personal reflection on the project will also explore the pertinent nursing issues around; role impact and definition, conflict and change management, communication, legislation and personal and professional growth. Recommendations for future initiatives will also be explored.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing in Critical CareSame topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207