MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316681866 · doi:10.4187/respcare.03609

Home Mechanical Ventilation in Canada: A National Survey

2015· article· en· W2316681866 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Louise Rose, Douglas McKim, Sherri L. Katz, David Leasa, Mika Nonoyama, Cheryl Pedersen, Roger Goldstein, Jeremy Road

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiratory Care · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaWest Park Healthcare CentreVancouver Coastal HealthLondon Health Sciences CentreOntario Tech UniversityChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioOttawa HospitalHealth Sciences CentreToronto East General HospitalUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineMechanical ventilationVentilation (architecture)Intensive care medicineEmergency medicineAnesthesiaMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: No comprehensive Canadian national data describe the prevalence of and service provision for ventilator-assisted individuals living at home, data critical to health-care system planning for appropriate resourcing. Our objective was to generate national data profiling service providers, users, types of services, criteria for initiation and monitoring, ventilator servicing arrangements, education, and barriers to home transition. METHODS: Eligible providers delivering services to ventilator-assisted individuals (adult and pediatric) living at home were identified by our national provider inventory and referrals from other providers. The survey was administered via a web link from August 2012 to April 2013. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 152/171 (89%). We identified 4,334 ventilator-assisted individuals: an estimated prevalence of 12.9/100,000 population, with 73% receiving noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and 18% receiving intermittent mandatory ventilation (9% not reported). Services were delivered by 39 institutional providers and 113 community providers. We identified variation in initiation criteria for NIV, with polysomnography demonstrating nocturnal hypoventilation (57%), daytime hypercapnia (38%), and nocturnal hypercapnia (32%) as the most common criteria. Various models of ventilator servicing were reported. Most providers (64%) stated that caregiver competency was a prerequisite for home discharge; however, repeated competency assessment and retraining were offered by only 45%. Important barriers to home transition were: insufficient funding for paid caregivers, equipment, and supplies; a shortage of paid caregivers; and negotiating public funding arrangements. CONCLUSIONS: Ventilatory support in the community appears well-established, with most individuals managed with NIV. Although caregiver competency is a prerequisite to discharge, ongoing assessment and retraining were infrequent. Funding and caregiver availability were important barriers to home transition.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations146
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRespiratory CareSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207