MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2414429113 · doi:10.1097/dcc.0000000000000118

Nurses’ Practices and Lead Selection in Monitoring for Myocardial Ischemia

2015· article· en· W2414429113 on OpenAlexaff
John R. Blakeman, Katherine Sarsfield, Kathy J. Booker

Bibliographic record

VenueDimensions of Critical Care Nursing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsRegistered Nurses' Association of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial ischemiaIntervention (counseling)Coronary care unitEmergency medicineClinical PracticeTest (biology)IschemiaMedical emergencyNursingCardiologyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The 5-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) provides key information, including clues that a patient may be experiencing myocardial ischemia, usually demonstrated in the ST segment. Studies have shown that nursing knowledge regarding ischemia monitoring is suboptimal, even though national guidelines for ECG monitoring were published in 2004 by the American Heart Association and endorsed by the American Association of Critical Care Nurses. PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to identify best practice regarding 5-lead ECG myocardial ischemia monitoring, assess current unit-level practice at 1 institution, and to educate nurses on proper monitoring using a nurse-led, evidence-based intervention. METHODS: The authors created an educational PowerPoint designed to educate nurses on proper lead selection to monitor the ST segment for patients admitted with known or suspected myocardial ischemia and developed a 3-part online survey to assess current unit practice and to assess knowledge before and after intervention. RESULTS: A total of 18 registered nurses (RNs) completed the survey. Results indicated that RNs lacked knowledge regarding continuous ECG monitoring for ischemia and had room for improvement in their everyday practice habits. The knowledge preintervention test mean score (out of 9) was 3.11 (SD, 1.68), and the postintervention test mean score was 6.94 (SD, 1.55), which was significant (P = .000). The intervention also significantly improved the monitoring comfort level of RNs, with a preintervention comfort level of 2.53 (SD, 1.07) and a postintervention level of 3.41 (SD, 1.00) (P = .007). The process allowed the authors to reflect on the key steps of implementing evidence-based projects in nursing units. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous, 5-lead ECG monitoring is an active process that requires clinical decision making by the nurse and is not a passive activity. Registered nurses in this sample demonstrated a lack of knowledge regarding ECG monitoring for ischemia that was improved with an online educational intervention and reported intentional daily practice pattern changes postintervention testing. A unit-level intervention driven by nurses may be successful at improving fellow RNs' knowledge and evidence-based practice.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDimensions of Critical Care NursingSame topicNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringFrench-language works237,207