MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of an Evaluation Tool for a Clinical Practice Guideline on Nursing Assessment and Device Selection for Vascular Access

2007· article· en· W2088569049 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Infusion Nursing · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChartGuidelineAuditMedicineDocumentationFlow chartNursing assessmentNursingMEDLINEHealth careAgency (philosophy)Medical emergencyBusinessComputer scienceAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study developed and tested a chart audit tool to assess the implementation of evidence-based recommendations for vascular access nursing assessment and device selection. Chart audits of 71 patients were conducted in a home healthcare agency and a community hospital prior to guideline implementation. Observations of initial infusion therapy and chart audit documentation of 31 patients were also compared. Results from observations indicated that nurses provided care consistent with the recommendations, but findings from chart audits indicated that assessment and decisionmaking were poorly documented. Studies that use only precomparison and postcomparison by chart audit may miss changes in nursing practice.

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 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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.593
Teacher spread0.394 · 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