How Long Does it Take to Initiate a Child on Long‐Term Invasive Ventilation? Results From A Canadian Pediatric Home Ventilation Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the length of stay required to initiate long-term invasive ventilation at the authors' institution, which would inform future interventional strategies to streamline the in-hospital stay for these families. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of children initiated on invasive long-term ventilation via tracheostomy at the authors' acute care centre between January 2005 and December 2013 was performed. RESULTS: Thirty-five children were initiated on long-term invasive ventilation via tracheostomy at the acute care hospital; 19 (54%) were male. The median age at time of admission was 0.52 years (interquartile range [IQR] 0.06 to 9.58 years) . Musculoskeletal disease (n=11 [31%]) was the most common reason for tracheostomy insertion. Two children died during the hospital admission. Fifteen children were discharged home directly from the acute care hospital and 18 were moved to the rehabilitation hospital. Six are current inpatients of the rehabilitation centre and were never discharged home. Combining the length of stay at the acute care and rehabilitation hospitals for the entire cohort, the median length of stay was 162.0 days (IQR 98.0 to 275.0 days) and 97.0 days (IQR 69.0 to 210.0 days), respectively, from the time of tracheostomy insertion. CONCLUSIONS: The median length of stay from the initiation of invasive long-term ventilation to discharge home from the rehabilitation hospital was somewhat long compared with other ventilation programs worldwide. Additionally, approximately 20% of the cohort never transitioned home. There is a timely need to benchmark across the country and internationally, to identify and implement strategies for cohesive, coordinated care for these children to decrease overall length of stay.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".