MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Implementation of a Postoperative Care Process on a Neurosurgical Unit

2005· article· en· W2080893449 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mary Douglas, Sheila Rowed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience Nursing · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSickKids Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care unitProtocol (science)Intensive care medicinePatient safetySurgeryMedical emergencyHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The postoperative phase is a critical time for any neurosurgical patient. Historically, certain patients having neurosurgical procedures, such as craniotomies and other more complex surgeries, have been nursed postoperatively in the intensive care unit (ICU) for an overnight stay, prior to transfer to a neurosurgical floor. At the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, because of challenges with access to ICU beds and the cancellation of surgeries because of lack of available nurses for the ICU setting, this practice was reexamined. A set of criteria was developed to identify which postoperative patients should come directly to the neurosurgical unit immediately following their anesthetic recovery. The criteria were based on patient diagnosis, preoperative condition, comorbidities, the surgical procedure, intraoperative complications, and postoperative status. A detailed process was then outlined that allowed the optimum patients to be selected for this process to ensure patient safety. Included in this process was a postoperative protocol addressing details such as standard physician orders and the levels of monitoring required. Outcomes of this new process include fewer surgical cancellations for patients and families, equally safe, or better patient care, and the conservation of limited ICU resources. The program has currently been expanded to include patients who have undergone endovascular therapies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.365 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuroscience NursingSame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207