MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921107206 · doi:10.1093/jbcr/irz013.035

31 Implementation of Provincial Adult Burn Clinical Practice Guidelines and their Impact on Patient Outcomes

2019· article· en· W2921107206 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Mankowski, Krista Genoway, T Gregory, Anthony Papp

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBurn centerGuidelineResuscitationTrauma centerAbdominal compartment syndromeBurn injuryEmergency medicineInjury Severity ScoreClinical PracticeEmergency departmentRetrospective cohort studyIntensive care medicinePoison controlSurgeryInjury preventionPhysical therapyAbdomen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2011, our institution implemented province clinical practice guidelines were implemented in 2011 to standardize acute burn management and resuscitation practices to optimize consistency in patient care prior to transport to a designated burn center. A retrospective review was performed to evaluate the impact of these guidelines on burn patient care since their implementation. A review of patients admitted at our burn center between 2011–2016 after the implementation of the 2011 provincial burn guidelines was performed evaluating TBSA estimation, resuscitation records and clinical outcomes. Study inclusion required patients greater than 18 years old with a TBSA burn injury larger than 15%. Patients were categorized into groups based on treatment adherence to the 2011 guidelines and if they were treated initially peripherally or directly at our quaternary burn center. Results were compared previous burn outcome data obtained prior to guideline implementation. A total of ninety-five patients met the study inclusion criteria. In the first 24 hours after acute burn injury, the patients that were initially managed peripherally and then transferred, received an average of 5.8cc/kg/%TBSA of fluids when there was no evidence of guideline adherence. If the guidelines were implemented only after transferred to our center, patients received an average of 5.0cc/kg/%TBSA. For burns patients where guidelines were utilized both peripherally and after transfer, an average 4.0cc/kg/%TBSA was used for resuscitation. Complications such as respiratory failure (17% vs. 11%), abdominal compartment syndrome (4% vs. 0%) and acute kidney injury (50% vs. 33%) more frequently developed when the guidelines were implemented only after transfer to our burn center. The implementation of new clinical practice guidelines to aid in fluid resuscitation following major burns has decreased IV fluid administration for patients initially assessed in peripheral low volume centers. Early guideline implementation may decrease burn associated systemic morbidities. This research reinforces the importance of standardizing treatment practices to improve burn patient care and discusses the obstacles associated with disseminating specialized clinical skills and knowledge.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.422 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207