An Infusion Program Resource Nurse Consult Service: Our Experience in a Major Canadian Teaching Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infusion resource teams are comprised of nurses specially trained and experienced in infusion therapy. Our multidisciplinary team provides clinical, educational, and research support to a 1000-bed Canadian tertiary hospital. To characterize the infusion resource nurse service, 789 recorded consults for 250 patients during a 12-month period study were reviewed. Noncritical medicine and surgical wards accounted for a similar number of consults, with the highest volume (31% of total consults) being generated by the general and vascular surgery wards. Vein status was visible and either "fair" or "good" in approximately half of all consults, but 39% of consults were visible and "poor." Most consults (81% of total) resulted in the initiation of peripheral intravenous catheters into an area of nonflexion in an upper extremity and successful peripheral catheter initiations were accomplished in 96% of all cases. Our multidisciplinary infusion program approach to vascular access support appears to be a well-utilized and an effective resource for this hospital.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".