ICU research coordinator activities: a time-in-motion multicenter study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ICU Research Coordinators (ICURCs) represent a growing membership in the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group (CCCTG). The professional contribution of ICURCs to clinical critical care research is profound, but has not been well characterized. To describe the settings, studies, resources, tools, and activities of Canadian ICURCs. We conducted a prospective observational time-in-motion study of CCCTG ICURCs from 20 September to 15 October 2004. We generated items and domains in focus groups. The instrument was formatted using both open and closed ended responses. We piloted for comprehensiveness and clarity. We obtained data on the setting, studies, tools and resources available in each center, then used a weekly management log to document activities under seven domains. Completed forms were faxed to the Methods Center at St Joseph's Healthcare and entered into an Excel Spreadsheet for descriptive analyses. Twenty ICURCs participated from 13 mixed ICUs (100% university-affiliated hospitals with 440 ± 225 hospital beds and 23 ± 11 ICU beds). Over 4 weeks in 13 ICUs, 104 ± 64 patients were admitted, 74 ± 60 were screened and 9 ± 9 were enrolled in studies. On average, there were 4.6 ± 2.1 peer reviewed, and 3.8 ± 3.5 industry studies; 5.8 ± 3.4 were RCTs, 2.8 ± 2.3 were observational and 0.8 ± 1.2 were other designs. On average, 7.1 ± 5.8 studies enrolled adults and 1.5 ± 2.4 enrolled children. These resources were accessed electronically: laboratory data (100%), diagnostic images (53.8%), radiology reports (69.2%), ECGs (15.4%) and clinical information systems (15.4%). Data collection tools include: paper (100%), NCR paper (38.5%), datafax (38.5%), laptop (7.7%), PDAs (0%), and Web-based approaches (84.6%). Time spent in each of seven activities was: study preparation (literature review, inhouse protocol development, REB submissions and amendments, budget preparation, CRF development and piloting, regulatory document assembly, in-services), 16.5%; research conduct (screening, consent and family meetings, pharmacy and other study supplies, data collection and queries, conducting and preparing tests, AE and SAE reporting, bedside protocol compliance), 44.1%; communication (email/ telephone calls/mail, staff education), 14.3%; management (team meetings, multicentered management, screening and finance logs, initiation audit and close-out visits), 13.5%; data management (database creation and data entry, analysis), 3.9%; dissemination (interim and final reports, conference preparation and presentation), 3.0%; and miscellaneous, 4.7%. CCCTG ICURCs work primarily in mixed university-affiliated ICUs, conducting randomized trials in adults. The availability of electronic resources is modest, and variable data collection methods are employed. ICURCs engage in many activities to prepare, implement, and manage investigations for critically ill patients.
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 | 0.025 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".