Retrospective Comparison of Emergency Department Length of Stay for Procedural Sedation and Analgesia by Nurse Practitioners and Physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine if use of nurse practitioners (NPs) for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) compared with physicians (MDs) decreased overall length of stay (LOS) in the pediatric emergency department (PED). METHODS: Retrospective chart review was conducted on all children (age <21 years) undergoing procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) for 36 consecutive months at a tertiary academic children's hospital (n = 690). Data included times values for triage, evaluation by practitioner (NP, MD), sedation, discharge, and total LOS in the PED. Data collected also included medications given, patient diagnosis, and severe airway complications. RESULTS: Results revealed statistically significant time-related advantages to NP-managed sedations. Both PED LOS and time to sedation were significantly lower for NPs versus MDs across diagnoses (P < 0.01). The diagnoses managed by MDs versus NPs were significantly different for 3 diagnoses: fracture, finger, and lacerations. There were no differences between NP and MD for severe airway complication rates. CONCLUSIONS: Overall LOS and time to sedation were significantly improved when NPs independently managed patients requiring PSA without an increase in documented severe airway complication rates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".