Nursing Activities Score: an updated guideline for its application in the Intensive Care Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To describe nursing workload in Intensive Care Units (ICU) in different countries according to the scores obtained with Nursing Activities Score (NAS) and to verify the agreement among countries on the NAS guideline interpretation. Method This cross-sectional study considered 1-day measure of NAS (November 2012) obtained from 758 patients in 19 ICUs of seven countries (Norway, the Netherlands, Spain, Poland, Egypt, Greece and Brazil). The Delphi technique was used in expertise meetings and consensus. Results The NAS score was 72.8% in average, ranging from 44.5% (Spain) to 101.8% (Norway). The mean NAS score from Poland, Greece and Egypt was 83.0%, 64.6% and 57.1%, respectively. The NAS score was similar in Brazil (54.0%) and in the Netherlands (51.0%). There were doubts in the understanding of five out 23 items of the NAS (21.7%) which were discussed until researchers' consensus. Conclusion NAS score were different in the seven countries. Future studies must verify if the fine standardization of the guideline can have a impact on differences in the NAS results.
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 | 0.016 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".