Abstract P355: Is Knowledge of Proper Technique a Barrier to Accurate Blood Pressure Measurement in the Hemodialysis Unit?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Hypertension and hypotension are associated with adverse outcomes in hemodialysis patients. However, routine blood pressure measurement in the hemodialysis unit has poor correlation with interdialytic blood pressure and clinical outcomes. Poor measurement technique in routine practice may contribute to this poor correlation. We aim to assess hemodialysis unit nurses’ knowledge of proper blood pressure measurement technique. Methods: All hemodialysis unit nurses were asked to anonymously answer 12 multiple-choice questions on proper blood pressure measurement technique, based on Hypertension Canada guidelines. Frequency of incorrect responses were used to gauge gaps in knowledge. Results: 73 hemodialysis nurses completed the survey with an average score of 9.5/12 (SD 1.4). Only four respondents answered all questions correctly. The most frequent errors were regarding patient position during measurement. 96% of respondents graded their confidence in their blood pressure measurement technique as ≥4/5. Conclusion: Despite routine use and high confidence, there are gaps in knowledge of proper blood pressure measurement technique.
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 | 0.009 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".