Staff perceptions of respiratory rate measurement in a general hospital
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: the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2007) states that 'respiratory rate is the best marker of a sick patient and is the first observation that will indicate a problem or deterioration in condition'. It is therefore crucial that staff are confident that respiratory rates are recorded accurately. AIMS: to assess perceptions of clinical staff regarding methods of assessment and reliability of respiratory rate recordings in observation charts. METHODS: we developed a questionnaire using best practice guidelines. Some 41 ward-based clinical staff completed the questionnaires. FINDINGS: confidence in the reliability of recordings is very low. Clinical staff think recordings are often estimated with no formal measurement, with 'perceived lack of time' being the most commonly cited explanation for inappropriate assessment. CONCLUSIONS: essential clinical information is not being used, as clinical staff lack confidence that it has been assessed correctly. Furthermore, inaccurate recordings could be actively misleading clinical care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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