Assessment of Arm Port Access Events for 2 Different Port Designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Patients in our health region received 1 of 2 different arm ports, totally implanted venous access devices (TIVADs), for the management of their malignancies. One of the ports was a nonpower-injectable design and the other was power-injectable. Infusion nurses most commonly access TIVADs in our health region. It was our goal to evaluate infusion nursing access events for these 2 different TIVADs to determine whether nurses experienced any practical, or functional, differences based on port design. Methods: For this quality assurance project a locally designed, paper-based, questionnaire was developed and administered. Infusion nurses completed the questionnaire after they had accessed an arm TIVAD for intravenous chemotherapy. Sequential access events were tracked for 2 months. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in the responses related to the 2 different TIVAD designs. Identifying the type of implanted TIVAD for each access event in the study group provided some challenges for the infusion nurses. Eighteen nonpower-injectable ports were erroneously identified as power-injectable. Conclusions: The results illustrate that our local cancer center infusion nurses were a very experienced group who have been able to adapt to the 2 different arm TIVAD designs. There was no statistically different access event parameters for the 2 different port designs. Additional end-user education may be warranted to improve port design identification.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".