Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To explore the effect of three-level visit system in critical patients' management. Methods: We implemented three-level visit, so called unit, division and department level visit, to critical patients from all departments of our hospital since October, 2010. In department level, we organized a group of professional experts from different divisions to supervise critical patients if needed. We call them Critical Care Supervision Team (CCST). Nursing care quality, suggestions raised by professional visitors, and patients' demographic data were collected and analyzed. Results: Since three-level visit system implemented, 1189 critical patients were visited from October, 2010 to December, 2011 by the CCST. From October, 2010 to December, 2010,The nursing quality score for critical patients increased from 97.64 to 99.05, and then maintain at this level. Moreover, more suggestions were given to the staff nurses to provide better specialized care for critical patients, from 0 to 26 per quarter of a year. Conclusion:Three-level visit for critical patients was an effective method to enhance patients management and care quality.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".