MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2558059935 · doi:10.1177/084456211404600207

Acute Coronary Syndrome Pain and Anxiety in a Rural Emergency Department: Patient and Nurse Perspectives

2014· article· en· W2558059935 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sheila O’Keefe-McCarthy, Michael McGillion, Sioban Nelson, Sean P. Clarke, Jeremy Jones, Sheila Rizza, Judith McFetridge-Durdle

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Nursing Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHumber River Regional HospitalMcMaster UniversityHeart and Stroke FoundationMcGill UniversityCouncil of Canadians with Disabilities
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcute coronary syndromeEmergency departmentChest painAcute painAnxietyPhysical therapyEmergency medicineAnesthesiaInternal medicineNursingMyocardial infarctionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rural patients can wait up to 32 hours for transfer to cardiac catheterization (CATH) for events related to acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Pain arising from myocardial ischemia can be severe and anxiety-provoking. Pain management during this time should be optimized in order to preserve vulnerable myocardial muscle. This qualitative focus group study solicited the perspectives of ACS patients and emergency staff nurses on the rural patient experience of cardiac pain and anxiety and priorities and barriers to optimal assessment and management of ACS pain. Patients described ACS pain as moderate to severe, with pain in the chest, arms, back, shoulders, and jaw. Pain was well assessed and managed upon arrival in the emergency department but anxiety was not routinely assessed or treated. Barriers identified were poor management of patients with different acuity levels, high patient volumes, and assumptions regarding patients' communication about pain. Research related to ACS pain and anxiety management in the rural context is recommended.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Nursing Research→Same topicCardiac Health and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→