MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947628979 · doi:10.1186/s40814-019-0453-2

Measuring overuse of continuous pulse oximetry in bronchiolitis and developing strategies for large-scale deimplementation: study protocol for a feasibility trial

2019· article· en· W2947628979 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Irit R. Rasooly, Rinad S. Beidas, Courtney Benjamin Wolk, Frances K. Barg, Christopher P. Landrigan, Amanda C. Schondelmeyer, Patrick W. Brady, Lisa M. McLeod, Christopher P. Bonafide

Bibliographic record

VenuePilot and Feasibility Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory viral infections research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteQuality Enhancement Research InitiativeWashington University in St. LouisNational Institutes of HealthEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentChildren's Hospital of PhiladelphiaNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsPulse oximetryProtocol (science)BronchiolitisScale (ratio)MedicineComputer scienceIntensive care medicineInternal medicineGeographyAnesthesiaAlternative medicinePathologyCartographyRespiratory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Deimplementation, the systematic elimination of low-value practices, has emerged as an important focus within implementation science. Bronchiolitis is the leading cause of infant hospitalization. Among stable inpatients with bronchiolitis who do not require supplemental oxygen, continuous pulse oximetry monitoring is recognized as an overused, low-value practice in pediatric hospital medicine. There is strong scientific evidence and practice guideline support for limiting pulse oximetry monitoring of stable children with bronchiolitis who do not require supplemental oxygen, yet the practice remains common. This study aims to (1) characterize the extent of this overuse in hospitals located in the USA and Canada, (2) identify barriers and facilitators of successful deimplementation of continuous pulse oximetry monitoring in bronchiolitis, and (3) develop consensus strategies for large-scale deimplementation. In addition to identifying feasible strategies for deimplementation, this study will test the feasibility of data collection approaches to be employed in a large-scale deimplementation trial. METHODS: This multicenter study will be performed in approximately 38 hospitals in the Pediatric Research in Inpatient Settings Network. In Aim 1, we will determine the rate of overuse within each hospital by performing repeated cross-sectional observational sampling of continuous pulse oximetry monitoring of stable bronchiolitis patients age 8 weeks through 23 months who do not require supplemental oxygen. In Aim 2, we will use the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) as a framework for semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders (physician, nurse, respiratory therapist, administrator, and parent) at the highest- and lowest-overuse hospitals to understand barriers and facilitators of continuous pulse oximetry monitoring deimplementation. In Aim 3, we will use a theory-based causal model to match the identified barriers and facilitators to potential strategies for deimplementation. Candidate strategies will be discussed with a panel of stakeholders from hospitals with high rates of overuse to assess feasibility and acceptability. A questionnaire ranking strategies based on feasibility, acceptability, and impact will be administered to a broader group of stakeholders to arrive at consensus about promising strategies for large-scale deimplementation to be tested in a subsequent trial. DISCUSSION: Effective strategies for deimplementing continuous pulse oximetry monitoring of stable patients with bronchiolitis have not been well characterized. The findings of this study will provide further understanding of factors that facilitate deimplementation in pediatric hospital settings and provide pilot and feasibility data to inform a trial of large-scale deimplementation of this overused practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable. This study does not meet the World Health Organization definition of a clinical trial.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.098
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.116
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0980.116
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.008
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0100.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0640.014

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 head0.460
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.061 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePilot and Feasibility StudiesSame topicRespiratory viral infections researchFrench-language works237,207