MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318031913 · doi:10.1186/2197-425x-3-s1-a28

Psychotropic Drug Use Before And During Physical Restraint For Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Adults

2015· article· en· W2318031913 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lisa Burry, Melanie Guenette, Tara Farquharson, Alexandra Cheung, Sangeeta Mehta, Marlene Traille, Ioanna Mantas, Louise Rose

Bibliographic record

VenueIntensive Care Medicine Experimental · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCritically illIntensive care medicineDrugCritical illnessMechanical ventilationEmergency medicineAnesthesiaPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physical restraint (PR) is common in Canadian intensive care units (ICUs); used in up to 76% of mechanically ventilated patients.[ 1 ] Psychotropic drugs may minimize PR used for agitation, promoting patient safety and preventing treatment interference. No data describes the psychotropic drug use around the time of PR application. To characterize alterations to psychotropic drug regimens 1 hour prior and 6 hours after PR application for critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults. Prospective single centre observational study (Feb 2014 to Jan 2015). Eligible patients were physically restrained while receiving mechanical ventilation. Psychotropic drug data were collected 1 hour before PR and for 6 hours after PR. We recorded PR indications, psychotropic drug interventions including new drug initiation, dose increase, dose decrease, and drug cessation. We documented total duration of PR, Sedation Agitation Scale (SAS) scores and presence of delirium (Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist score ≥4). We used McNemar's tests to compare across time points. We enrolled 93 patients meeting our inclusion criteria. Mean age 59 years, 53% male, and 65% medical admissions. Median (IQR) mechanical ventilation duration was 5 (2, 9) days. 111 indications for PR included prevention of treatment interference (90, 81%), agitation (13, 12%), physical violence towards staff (5, 5%), and self-harm (3, 3%). Median (IQR) duration of restraint application was 21 (9, 70) hours. of the 69 patients with delirium screening documented, 23 (33%) were delirious. More patients received a psychotropic drug intervention after PR (52 vs 80, P < 0.001) and more patients received an opioid after PR (19 vs 50, P < 0.001). Use of other drugs did not differ (Table 1 ). Sedation profile of the 51 patients with SAS scores documented pre and post is shown in Table 2 . Adverse events during PR were uncommon with unintentional device removal in 7 (8%) patients. Psychotropic drug interventions were more common after PR application with opioids used most frequently suggesting priority of analgesia over sedation. Most patients had a SAS score indicating appropriate or oversedation in the hour prior suggesting PR was used more often as a preemptive approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntensive Care Medicine ExperimentalSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207