Shoulder Dystocia Documentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality and content of nurse and physician shoulder dystocia delivery documentation before and after MORE training in shoulder dystocia management skills and documentation. METHODS: Approximately 384 charts at the Ottawa Hospital General Campus involving a diagnosis of shoulder dystocia between the years of 2000 and 2006 excluding the training year of 2003 were identified. The charts were evaluated for 14 key components derived from a validated instrument. The delivery notes were then scored based on these components by 2 separate investigators who were blinded to delivery note author, date, and patient identification to further quantify delivery record quality. RESULTS: Approximately 346 charts were reviewed for physician and nurse delivery documentation. The average score for physician notes was 6 (maximum possible score of 14) both before and after the training intervention. The nurses' average score was 5 before and after the training intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Negligible improvement was observed in the content and quality of shoulder dystocia documentation before and after nurse and physician training.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".