Postoperative Clinical Monitoring After Morphine Administration: A Retrospective Multicenter Practice Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this survey was to describe the clinical monitoring practically used after intravenous, subcutaneous or neuraxial (epidural or intrathecal) administration of morphine. METHODS: It was a descriptive, retrospective, multicenter (10 hospitals) survey based on the medical charts' analysis, which evaluated the postoperative clinical monitoring after morphine administration. RESULTS: Morphine was delivered intravenously (69%), intrathecally (19%), epidurally (10%) and/or subcutaneously (12%). Clinical monitoring protocols and protocols for the management of side effects were both present in 60% (n=6/10), only one of the two types of protocols in 10% (n=1/10) and both absent in 30% (n=3/10). Protocols for the management of respiratory depression and consciousness evaluation were present in 70% of cases (n=7/10). These events were reported on medical records without any prescription or protocol in 35% (n=14/40) and 37,5% (n=15/40) respectively. Prescriptions for respiratory rate evaluation and clinical monitoring of consciousness were in agreement with only 20% of the medical data and medical records. Different levels of respiratory rate were observed: 43% (n=3/7) below 8/min, 43% (n=3/7) below 10/min and 14% (n=1/7) below 12/min. Clinical monitoring was not performed in 31% (n=31/100) for consciousness and in 35% (n=35/100) for respiratory rate. Pulse oximeter was used in 48% (n=48/100) of patients. Capnography was never used. Respiratory depression occurred in 1% (n=1/100) of cases. CONCLUSION: This survey emphasizes an important disparity in the prescription of medical monitoring and a lack of use of protocols when morphine is administered. It demonstrates the need for a standardization of protocols according to the existing guidelines.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".