MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2551979146 · doi:10.1111/chd.12438

Defining pediatric inpatient cardiology care delivery models: A survey of pediatric cardiology programs in the USA and Canada

2016· article· en· W2551979146 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Antonio R. Mott, Steven R. Neish, Melissa Challman, Timothy F. Feltes

Bibliographic record

VenueCongenital Heart Disease · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHospital Admissions and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSubspecialtyFamily medicineCoronary care unitMedical emergencyEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The treatment of children with cardiac disease is one of the most prevalent and costly pediatric inpatient conditions. The design of inpatient medical services for children admitted to and discharged from noncritical cardiology care units, however, is undefined. North American Pediatric Cardiology Programs were surveyed to define noncritical cardiac care unit models in current practice. METHOD: An online survey that explored institutional and functional domains for noncritical cardiac care unit was crafted. All questions were multi-choice with comment boxes for further explanation. The survey was distributed by email four times over a 5-month period. RESULTS: Most programs (n = 45, 60%) exist in free-standing children's hospitals. Most programs cohort cardiac patients on noncritical cardiac care units that are restricted to cardiac patients in 39 (54%) programs or restricted to cardiac and other subspecialty patients in 23 (32%) programs. The most common frontline providers are categorical pediatric residents (n = 58, 81%) and nurse practitioners (n = 48, 67%). However, nurse practitioners are autonomous providers in only 21 (29%) programs. Only 33% of programs use a postoperative fast-track protocol. When transitioning care to referring physicians, most programs (n = 53, 72%) use facsimile to deliver pertinent patient information. Twenty-two programs (31%) use email to transition care, and eighteen (25%) programs use verbal communication. CONCLUSION: Most programs exist in free-standing children's hospitals in which the noncritical cardiac care units are in some form restricted to cardiac patients. While nurse practitioners are used on most noncritical cardiac care units, they rarely function as autonomous providers. The majority of programs in this survey do not incorporate any postoperative fast-track protocols in their practice. Given the current era of focused handoffs within hospital systems, relatively few programs utilize verbal handoffs to the referring pediatric cardiologist/pediatrician.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCongenital Heart DiseaseSame topicHospital Admissions and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207