Abstract 14151: Improved Electrocardiographic Monitoring Practices in the Practical Use of the Latest Standards of Electrocardiography (PULSE) Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Although ECG monitoring is ubiquitous in hospitals, evidence suggests that monitoring practices are inconsistent and often inadequate. Hypothesis: An intervention consisting of an online ECG monitoring education program and strategies to implement and sustain change will result in improved practices related to ECG monitoring. Methods: The PULSE Trial is a 5-year, 3-phase, multi-site randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effect of the implementation of AHA practice standards for ECG monitoring on nurses’ knowledge, quality of care, and patient outcomes. We are reporting quality of care results from baseline and after the intervention in experimental group hospitals. Over 5 consecutive days at each time point, 3 research nurses observed monitors and electrode placement, reviewed current medical records, and compared arrhythmias stored in the monitor’s memory with documentation by unit nurses. The sample contained 2,872 patients on cardiac units in 14 hospitals in the US, Canada, and China....
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".