MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2803955999 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxy054.081

DEVELOPMENT OF A SCORING SYSTEM FOR THE NURSING WORKLOAD IN A PEDIATRIC INTENSIVE CARE UNIT

2018· article· en· W2803955999 on OpenAlexaff
Alexa Eberle, Philippe Jouvet, Sylvie Charette, Bryan Provost

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkloadIntraclass correlationMedicineContext (archaeology)StaffingNursingRetrospective cohort studyInclusion and exclusion criteriaInternal medicinePsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND Nursing workload evaluation tools are designed to determine adequate staffing for a given shift. Only retrospective tools that do not predict the number of nurses needed to start a shift exist. A prospective nursing workload evaluation tool (SJ score), developed by a group of nurses with items based on previously published retrospective scores and clinical experience, includes 16 weighted sections (scored from 0 to >100 with 1 point ≈ 5 min nurse workload). OBJECTIVES This study’s aim is to assess the reliability and validity of the SJ score in the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU). DESIGN/METHODS Inclusion criteria: children admitted in a PICU, age < 18 yo. Exclusion criteria: already included 3 times in this study (phase 1 only) or children discharged 2 hr after the beginning of the nurse shift studied. Children were scored for 8 hr nursing shifts. Phase 1 (pilot validation) required simultaneous prospective SJ scoring by the nurse in charge (NIC) and chief nurse (SC), then a retrospective SJ score by an independent trained investigator (AE). Phase 2 (validation in the real context of the PICU), which used an improved SJ score, required that each child had an SJ score prospectively by the NIC of the previous shift, then retrospectively by the NIC of the dedicated shift. Statistical analysis included the intraclass correlation (ICC) and a Bland Altman plot. Bland Altman was considered acceptable if mean difference was closed to 0. For ICC: 0.40 RESULTS 165 patients’ shifts observations were performed in phase 1. In the comparison between the prospective score performed by the NIC and SC, the Bland Altman mean difference was -0.03 with limits of agreement between -3.63 and 3.58, and the ICC was good: 0.63 with 95%confidence interval (95ICC) from 0.40 to 0.93. In the comparison between the prospective score of the NIC and AE retrospective score, the ICC was fair: 0.52 with 95ICC from 0.32 to 0.78. In phase 2, 2599 patients’ shifts were studied. The Bland Altman mean difference was 0.21 with limits of agreement between -10.5 and 10.9, and the ICC was excellent: 0.86 with 95ICC from 0.85 to 0.87. CONCLUSION The SJ score prospectively predicted well nursing workload in a single PICU. Additional studies are needed to determine the validity in other PICUs.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicEmergency and Acute Care Studies→French-language works237,207→