My Throat is Itchy! An In-situ Simulation for Interprofessional Healthcare Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In-situ simulation occurs in the clinical environment. This allows healthcare providers greater access to the educational session while providing the opportunity to test systems or protocols in place. Anaphylaxis is a rare and life-threatening event. As such, many healthcare providers are uncomfortable managing it. The use of simulation as an educational methodology allows the learners to practice rare, high-risk scenarios in a low-risk environment. There is no negative impact to an actual patient when an in-situ simulation education session is provided. Usually there are positive results due to increased staff awareness and improved process. In the spring of 2015, stakeholders at the outpatient antibiotic therapy program (OPAT) at The Ottawa Hospital (TOH) approached the nurse educator team to develop an education session around anaphylaxis management. The nurse educators chose to design and implement an in-situ simulation scenario involving the inter-professional clinic team. Through the use of inter-professional in-situ simulation the team was able to clarify roles, identify equipment issues and rectify those issues as this technical report describes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".