MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321451119 · doi:10.1097/pec.0000000000000475

Implementation of an Advanced Nursing Directive for Children With Right Lower Quadrant Pain

2015· article· en· W2321451119 on OpenAlexaff
Graham C. Thompson, Simon Kwong, Niklas Bobrovitz, S.Q. Yang, Erin Pols, Antonia Stang, Robin Eccles, Veronica Kazoleas

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Emergency Care · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAppendicitis Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuadrant (abdomen)DirectiveNursingPhysical therapySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Advanced nursing directives (ANDs) empower nursing staff to provide advanced levels of care before physician assessment. The objectives of this study were (1) to determine whether an AND for right lower quadrant (RLQ) pain could identify children who required any further investigation to diagnose appendicitis and (2) to determine whether children meeting AND criteria had better emergency department (ED) flow metrics compared with those who did not meet the criteria. METHODS: Health records of children aged 3 to 17 years presenting to the ED with abdominal pain who were managed using the departmental AND for RLQ pain were reviewed. Primary outcomes included (1) the proportion of patients requiring further investigation to diagnose appendicitis and (2) the time interval from triage to blood draw. Secondary outcomes included additional ED flow metrics, perforation rate, and negative appendectomy rate. RESULTS: An AND was completed for 210 children. Those who met the AND criteria were more likely to undergo further investigation to rule out appendicitis than those who did not meet the criteria (92/137 [67.2%] vs 32/73 [43.8%]; odds ratio [OR], 2.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40-4.90). Time to blood draw was significantly lower for those children meeting the AND criteria (74 vs 162 minutes, P < 0.001) as was time to hospital admission (271 vs 395 minutes, P = 0.008) and appendectomy (498 vs 602 minutes, P = 0.015). The negative appendectomy rate was 8.6% (5/58) for children meeting the AND criteria and 9.1% (2/22) for those not meeting the criteria (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.14-10.67); the perforation rate was 29.3% (17/58) and 4.5% (1/22), respectively (OR, 8.17; 95% CI, 1.17-380.86). CONCLUSIONS: Children presenting to the ED with RLQ pain who meet the AND criteria are more likely to require further investigation to rule out appendicitis and have better department flow metrics than those who do not meet the criteria. Our results provide further evidence of the utility of ANDs in the ED.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.316 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Emergency CareSame topicAppendicitis Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207