A Survey of Temperature Management Practices Among Burn Centers in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maintaining body temperature is a unique challenge with burn care. We sought to describe core temperature goals in the operating room (OR) and the methods used to achieve and maintain these goals, along with current methods of warming in the intensive care unit (ICU), the perception of effect of increased ambient temperature on work performance, and concerns with contamination of sterile fields due to increased ambient temperature. A 24 question survey was disseminated to burn centers in the United States and Canada. The questions included demographics, target core and ambient temperatures, warming methods, and beliefs on ambient temperature's effects. Of 121 burn centers, 52 questionnaires were completed (43% response rate). The majority of centers targeted a core temperature between 36 and 38°C in the OR and an ambient temperature between 75 and 95°F in the ICU. The most common methods for maintaining core temperature included warmed ambient temperature, forced air devices, and intravenous fluids. Although the majority of centers reported the belief that increased ambient temperature benefits patients, many also reported that there is a negative impact on staff performance and risk of staff perspiration contaminating sterile fields. Burn centers reported a range of target core temperatures and methods to reach target temperatures. More than a third of respondents perceived a negative impact work performance while more than half acknowledged the potential for contamination of sterile fields. A prospective observational study is needed to determine actual temperature regulation practice patterns and its impact on outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".