MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093634926 · doi:10.12968/bjon.2011.20.21.1352

Simulation training for hyperacute stroke unit nurses

2011· article· en· W2093634926 on OpenAlexaff
Angela Roots, Libby Thomas, Peter Jaye, Jonathan Birns

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Nursing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultidisciplinary approachMedicineStroke (engine)Unit (ring theory)Simulation trainingExperiential learningAcute strokeModalitiesNursingTraining (meteorology)Medical emergencyMedical educationPsychologyEmergency departmentSimulationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

National clinical guidelines have emphasized the need to identify acute stroke as a clinical priority for early assessment and treatment of patients on hyperacute stroke units. Nurses working on hyperacute stroke units require stroke specialist training and development of competencies in dealing with neurological emergencies and working in multidisciplinary teams. Educational theory suggests that experiential learning with colleagues in real-life settings may provide transferable results to the workplace with improved performance. Simulation training has been shown to deliver situational training without compromising patient safety and has been shown to improve both technical and non-technical skills (McGaghie et al, 2010). This article describes the role that simulation training may play for nurses working on hyperacute stroke units explaining the modalities available and the educational potential. The article also outlines the development of a pilot course involving directly relevant clinical scenarios for hyperacute stroke unit patient care and assesses the benefits of simulation training for hyperacute stroke unit nurses, in terms of clinical performance and non-clinical abilities including leadership and communication.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.273
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations13
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of NursingSame topicSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207