Nursing and infection-control issues during high-frequency oscillatory ventilation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To review the specific nursing and infection-control issues that arise during the care of patients receiving high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV). DATA SOURCE: Published articles, governmental guidelines, and hospital procedures and practices. DATA SUMMARY: Nurses, respiratory therapists, and other clinicians caring for patients receiving HFOV need to be aware of specific differences in patient assessment, including close observation for symmetric chest-wall vibrations. In addition, management of sedation with or without neuromuscular blockade and effective communication with the patients are essential nursing skills needed with the use of HFOV. From an infection-control standpoint, HFOV is considered a high-risk respiratory procedure because of the inability to effectively filter all respiratory secretions. Appropriate infection-control precautions, including patient location and use of personal protective equipment, need to be considered when implementing HFOV in the intensive care unit. CONCLUSIONS: Important infection-control and nursing issues exist that are specific to the use of HFOV. These issues should be addressed with appropriate staff education before the implementation of HFOV in an intensive care unit.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".