MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2271317638 · doi:10.1155/2014/484835

Patient Transitions Relevant to Individuals Requiring Ongoing Ventilatory Assistance: A Delphi Study

2014· article· en· W2271317638 on OpenAlexafffund
Louise Rose, Robert Fowler, Roger Goldstein, Sherri L. Katz, David Leasa, Cheryl Pedersen, Douglas McKim, the CANuVENT Group

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Respiratory Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern UniversityOttawa HospitalWest Park Healthcare CentreHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreCentre for Global Health ResearchToronto East General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineDelphi methodMEDLINEIntensive care medicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Various terms, including 'prolonged mechanical ventilation' (PMV) and 'long-term mechanical ventilation' (LTMV), are used interchangeably to distinguish patient cohorts requiring ventilation, making comparisons and timing of clinical decision making problematic. OBJECTIVE: To develop expert, consensus-based criteria associated with care transitions to distinguish cohorts of ventilated patients. METHODS: A four-round (R), web-based Delphi study with consensus defined as >70% was performed. In R1, participants listed, using free text, criteria perceived to should and should not define seven transitions. Transitions comprised: T1 - acute ventilation to PMV; T2 - PMV to LTMV; T3 - PMV or LTMV to acute ventilation (reverse transition); T4 - institutional to community care; T5 - no ventilation to requiring LTMV; T6 - pediatric to adult LTMV; and T7 - active treatment to end-of-life care. Subsequent Rs sought consensus. RESULTS: Experts from intensive care (n=14), long-term care (n=14) and home ventilation (n=10), representing a variety of professional groups and geographical areas, completed all Rs. Consensus was reached on 14 of 20 statements defining T1 and 21 of 25 for T2. 'Physiological stability' had the highest consensus (97% and 100%, respectively). 'Duration of ventilation' did not achieve consensus. Consensus was achieved on 13 of 18 statements for T3 and 23 of 25 statements for T4. T4 statements reaching 100% consensus included: 'informed choice', 'patient stability', 'informal caregiver support', 'caregiver knowledge', 'environment modification', 'supportive network' and 'access to interprofessional care'. Consensus was achieved for 15 of 17 T5, 16 of 20 T6 and 21 of 24 T7 items. CONCLUSION: Criteria to consider during key care transitions for ventilator-assisted individuals were identified. Such information will assist in furthering the consistency of clinical care plans, research trials and health care resource allocation.

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)0.078
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0780.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations20
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Respiratory JournalSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207