What families have in the emergency tracheostomy kits: Identifying gaps to improve patient safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the contents of parent-created emergency tracheostomy kits and identify deficiencies. METHODS: This was an observational study. Data on emergency tracheostomy kits were abstracted for 30 consecutive children who had a tracheostomy tube in situ during an outpatient clinic visit with the Division of Respiratory Medicine and/or the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery at the Hospital for Sick Children between February 1 and October 30, 2016. A checklist of 12 essential items based on expert consensus was used to evaluate each tracheostomy kit. RESULTS: Emergency tracheostomy kits from all children were missing at least one item from the 12-item checklist. Nineteen (63%) kits had three or more critical items missing. All kits had the same size tracheotomy tube. Twenty-two (73%) kits did not have a half size smaller tracheostomy tube. Fifteen (50%) were missing a manual resuscitation bag and four (13.3%) were missing a suction machine. Children who had tracheostomy tube in situ for ≥4 years were more likely to have ≥3 missing items in their kit (43.4%) compared to those who had tracheostomy tube for <4 years (20%), (χ2 (1) = 9.85, P = 0.0017). CONCLUSION: Maintenance of a fully stocked emergency tracheostomy kit can save a child's life. It is incumbent upon healthcare providers to ensure ongoing reassessment of knowledge and skills required to care for a child with a tracheostomy tube and to regularly review the components of a child's emergency tracheostomy kit.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".