MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2698418411 · doi:10.1002/rth2.12020

Home infusion teaching practices at federally funded hemophilia treatment centers in the United States of America

2017· article· en· W2698418411 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maria E. Santaella, Maya Bloomberg, Debbie Anglade

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumFeelingNursingMedicineMedical educationFamily medicinePsychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unlabelled Box •Hemophilia nurses are expected to teach home infusion (HI) to patients and their caregivers. •A survey was conducted to identify current HI teaching practices in the United States of America. •Some nurses reported lacking confidence to teach; curricula exist but their use is not uniform. •The study supports the development of national guidelines and a standard curricula to teach HI. All authors equally contributed to the research design, research analysis and authorship of manuscript. We would like to thank the HTC nurses who participated in this study and those who submitted tools and resources used at their centers. We would also like to thank the Infusion Nurses Society for approving the use of their venipuncture practice survey questions. Lastly, we would like to thank the Dutch Network of Haemophilia Nurses and the Canadian Association of Nurses in Hemophilia Care who graciously shared their current HI curriculum/manual. Background Home management of hemophilia is standard of care in many countries. This study examined current nursing practices in teaching home infusion (HI) at hemophilia treatment centers (HTC) in the USA. Objectives The aims were to identify and compare tools and resources used, areas of unmet needs, and to discuss implications for nurses in practice. Methods An anonymous electronic survey was distributed to 574 HTC nurses; 156 responses were analyzed. Results The data demonstrated that nurses, more specifically nurse coordinators, were most responsible for teaching HI. However, many nurses lack the knowledge and confidence to do so: 23.0% responded feeling somewhat or not very confident with teaching. Of those 36.4% were staff nurses, 11.9% nurse coordinators, and 41.7% advanced practice registered nurses. The majority of nurses have worked more than 5 years as a nurse, with a mean length of time of 23.7 years (SD=11.12, range 3‐47) and a mean of 12.9 years (SD=10.29, range 1‐42) in a HTC. Thirty‐eight and a half percent of nurses have worked less than 5 years in a HTC. Most nurses appeared to follow the Infusion Nurses Society standards when performing venipunctures. Many centers reported using a formal tool or curriculum to teach HI. Nonetheless, these curricula are not uniform and their use is inconsistent between centers and regions. Conclusion There are currently no national guidelines or standards to assist nurses in this task. The data confirmed the need to develop guidelines and a standardized curriculum to teach HI.

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)0.005
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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.255
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch and Practice in Thrombosis and HaemostasisSame topicHemophilia Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207