MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2797658928 · doi:10.1093/jbcr/iry006.171

249 Evaluation of a Novel Model for Outpatient Paediatric Burn Care: A 3-year Review of Outcomes from the Burn Treatment Room

2018· review· en· W2797658928 on OpenAlexaff
Rayleigh Chan, Aaron C. Van Slyke, Marija Bucevska, Cynthia Verchere

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSedationDemographicsEmergency medicineBurn centerApneaIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaPoison control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Burn Treatment Room (BTR) is run by a multi-disciplinary team, providing sedation to burn patients undergoing dressing changes in a monitored setting outside the operating room. There is little literature on the safety, efficacy and logistics of treating outpatient paediatric burn patients in this manner. Here, we review the safety and efficacy of the BTR in conjunction with a qualitative analysis of staff experience. We conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients treated in the BTR from 2013 - 2015. Patient demographics, burn etiology, TBSA, burn depth, sedation, and complications were recorded. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative interviews with BTR staff were transcribed and common themes were extracted. 59 patients with a total of 216 BTR visits (average visit time 64.75 minutes) were included. Scald burns were the most common mechanism of injury (76%). Most burns were superficial dermal (54%) and initially estimated at 5–10% TBSA (57%). The majority of patients required intravenous sedation during dressing changes (72%), and propofol was the most common medication used (83%). Nine patients were converted from oral to IV sedation, two had short apnea periods that recovered spontaneously, and two had prolonged sedation. Overall, no major sedation-related complications occurred. Interviews with 19 staff members revealed an overall positive experience with few safety concerns; areas of improvement using the BTR model were identified. The BTR model is a safe and effective way to treat burn patients in an outpatient setting, preventing what would historically require inpatient management. Participants will be able to: 1. Identify which paediatric burn patients can be safely treated as an outpatient using the BTR model. 2. Identify weaknesses using the BTR model, and apply this knowledge to improve outpatient paediatric burn care at their own institution.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.331
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.167 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207