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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.045
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