MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2349763536

THE EFFECT OF OTTAWA DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK TRAINING IN AN INTERACTIVE WORKSHOP WITH AND WITHOUT STANDARDIZED PATIENTS ON CLINICAL DECISION-MAKING OF NURSES IN AN INTENSIVE CARE UNIT

2016· article· en· W2349763536 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elham Shahraki Moghaddam, Zahra-Sadat Manzari, fatemeh hashmati nabavi, Reza Mazlom

Bibliographic record

VenueFaṣlnāmah-i dānishkadah-i parastāri va māmāyī-i Urūmiyyah/Faṣlnāmah-i dānishkadah-i parastāri va māmāyī-i Urūmiyyah. · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineShahidTest (biology)Intervention (counseling)Clinical decision makingMann–Whitney U testIntensive care unitNursingSignificant differencePhysical therapyFamily medicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The complexity of the clinical status of patients in the ICU and the role of nurse’s decisions on clinical outcomes of patients makes the education of nurses an essential task in the wards. This study determined the effect of education based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework using interactive workshops on clinical decision-making skills of nurses in an intensive care unit (ICU). Materials and Methods: In this quasi experimental study, 58 nurses from the ICU of Shahid Kamyab Hospital in the city of Mashhad in Iran were randomly-assigned to one of the two workshops either with standardized patients (n = 28) or without standardized patients (n = 30). Each workshop session lasted 6 hours, and it had identical educational content and clinical scenarios. Both groups completed a clinical decision-making questionnaire before intervention, and 45 days post-intervention. Data analysis was done using the t-test, paired test, Mann-Whitney, and chi-square tests in SPSS (v. 16). Results were considered significant at p = 0.05. Results: There was no significant difference in decision-making (p = 0.120) between groups before intervention. The results of the paired-test indicated that the mean plus standard deviation scores were significantly different (p < 0.001) for the group with standardized patients from pre-intervention (97.7 ± 28.4) to post-intervention (152.5 ± 16.1), and in the group without standardized patients from preintervention (85.7 ± 29.2) to post-intervention (121.3 ± 24.6). The mean difference pre- and postintervention between the group with standardized patients (54.7 ± 22.3) and without standardized patients (35.5 ± 28.2) was also significant (p = 0.002). Conclusion: The results showed that a training program based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework promoted nurses participation in clinical decision-making in both groups, but the workshop with standardized patients was more effective in the development of this clinical skill. Applying this educational method in service training programs to improve nurse decision-making is recommended, particularly with the use of standardized patients

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.385 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaṣlnāmah-i dānishkadah-i parastāri va māmāyī-i Urūmiyyah/Faṣlnāmah-i dānishkadah-i parastāri va māmāyī-i Urūmiyyah.Same topicNursing Diagnosis and DocumentationFrench-language works237,207