Practice variation in the management of children hospitalized with bronchiolitis: A Canadian perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe variations in the monitoring, treatment, and discharge of children hospitalized with bronchiolitis among physicians across Canadian paediatric teaching hospitals. METHODS: We conducted an electronic survey of paediatricians with experience in the management of inpatient bronchiolitis at 20 Canadian paediatric teaching hospitals. Only physicians who worked a minimum of 6 weeks on their hospital inpatient unit in the 2015 calendar year were eligible to participate in the study. The questionnaire explored the monitoring, treatment, and discharge of children with bronchiolitis. Central tendency (mean) and dispersion (SD) statistics were produced for continuous variables and frequency distributions for categorical variables. RESULTS: A total of 142 respondents were included in the analysis. 45.1% reported the routine use of continuous oxygen saturation monitoring. 27.5% used a higher cut-off for oxygen supplementation of 92% and 12.7% use a lower cut-off of 88%. 29.6% routinely used deep nasal suctioning. Seventy-three per cent reported using nebulized therapies. 55.6% reported having preprinted order sheets or guidelines for management of inpatient bronchiolitis at their institutions and 28.2% reported having specific discharge criteria. The length of time required to be off oxygen prior to discharge varied (31% at 12 hours, 27.5% at 24 hours, and 24.6% after the last sleep period without oxygen). CONCLUSION: There is significant practice variation in the monitoring, treatment, and discharge of children hospitalized with bronchiolitis within and between Canadian paediatric teaching hospitals. Future research is needed to establish best practices, effective knowledge translation, and implementation strategies to standardize care and decrease 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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".