Evaluación del impacto de una trayectoria clínica sobre el ictus isquémico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the implementation of a clinical pathway for stroke patients. METHODS: We performed a controlled intervention study without random allocation that compared two non-concomitant cohorts of stroke patients corresponding to the periods immediately before (control group) and after (intervention group) the implementation of a clinical pathway. The main outcome measures were: a) quality of care indicators; b) improvements in functional capacity (Barthel score) and neurological function (Canadian scale); c) nosocomial complications; d) satisfaction, and e) mean length of hospital stay. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-nine patients were recruited. Sixty-nine corresponded to the period before implementation of the pathway and 70 corresponded to the period after implementation. There were no significant differences between the two groups on admission. A 36.5% reduction in the time from admission to mobilization was observed. No significant differences were observed between the groups for the other quality of care indicators, or in improvements in functional and neurological capacity. Nosocomial complications occurred in 44.5% of patients in the control group compared with 28.6% in the intervention group (p = .039). No significant differences were observed in the overall satisfaction assessment, but patients in the intervention group showed greater satisfaction in the dimensions of "information" and "trust and professionalism". The mean length of hospital stay was reduced from 11 to 10 days. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the stroke clinical pathway contributed to reducing the length of hospital stay and the number of inpatient complications, as well as to improving some quality of care indicators.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".