Effect of a collaborative weaning plan on patient outcome in the critical care setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The process of weaning from mechanical ventilation can be complex, requiring collaborative care planning by members of the healthcare team. Improved outcomes have been demonstrated to result from collaborative decision-making processes (e.g., when ventilator teams were utilized). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a collaborative weaning plan (CWP) on length of time on mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU), and cost. DESIGN: A new, collaborative weaning plan in the form of a weaning board and flowsheet was introduced into a medical intensive care unit (MICU) setting. A pre- and post-quasi-experimental design using historical controls was used to test the hypotheses. Attempts to control for the effects of history were made by collecting data related to patient, staffing, and organizational variables that could independently effect outcome. SETTING: MICU in a west coast teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation for 3 days or greater. INTERVENTION: Implementation of a collaborative weaning plan. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes studied included length of stay in the MICU, length of time patients were mechanically ventilated in the MICU, cost per MICU stay, and the incidence of complications (e.g., reventilation, readmission to the ICU, and mortality rate). MAIN RESULTS: The CWP decreased length of stay in the MICU by 3.6 days (p =.03) and length of ventilator time by 2.7 days (p =.06). There were no significant differences between groups related to cost or incidence of complications. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the usefulness of collaborative structures (such as weaning boards/flowsheets) in decreasing ICU length of stay.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".