Decisions Made By Critical Care Nurses During Mechanical Ventilation and Weaning in an Australian Intensive Care Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Responsibilities of critical care nurses for management of mechanical ventilation may differ among countries. Organizational interventions, including weaning protocols, may have a variable impact in settings that differ in nursing autonomy and interdisciplinary collaboration. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the role of Australian critical care nurses in the management of mechanical ventilation. METHODS: A 3-month, prospective cohort study was performed. All clinical decisions related to mechanical ventilation in a 24-bed, combined medical-surgical adult intensive care unit at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, a university-affiliated teaching hospital in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, were determined. RESULTS: Of 474 patients admitted during the 81-day study period, 319 (67%) received mechanical ventilation. Death occurred in 12.5% (40/319) of patients. Median durations of mechanical ventilation and intensive care stay were 0.9 and 1.9 days, respectively. A total of 3986 ventilation and weaning decisions (defined as any adjustment to ventilator settings, including mode change; rate or pressure support adjustment; and titration of tidal volume, positive end-expiratory pressure, or fraction of inspired oxygen) were made. Of these, 2538 decisions (64%) were made by nurses alone, 693 (17%) by medical staff, and 755 (19%) by nurses and staff in collaboration. Decisions made exclusively by nurses were less common for patients with predominantly respiratory disease or multiple organ dysfunction than for other patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this unit, critical care nurses have high levels of responsibility for, and autonomy in, the management of mechanical ventilation and weaning. Revalidation of protocols for ventilation practices in other clinical contexts may be needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".