Implementation of an experiential learning strategy to reduce the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill adult patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective We evaluated the impact of an experiential learning strategy on both the adherence to the use of bundles and the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill adult patients. Methods Longitudinal, quasi-experimental interrupted time-series study in a tertiary teaching hospital in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Successive measurements were made before and after the intervention was implemented between January 2016 and December 2018. Our main exposure was experiential learning, which was based on a combination of play activities, simulation models, knowledge and attitude competencies, role-playing and feedback. The adherence to the bundle for the care of mechanically ventilated critically-ill adult patients and the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia were the main outcomes of interest. We used generalized linear models including time as a linear spline to estimate the effect of the experiential learning strategy both on the adherence to the bundle of care and the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia during long-term follow-up. Results The overall proportion of adequate bundle use before and after the implementation of the intervention was 60.8% (95% CI: 56.9–64.7) and 85.6% (95% CI: 81.2–90.1), respectively. The incidence rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia before and after the intervention was 6.11 (95% CI: 5.82–6.40) and 3.55 (95% CI: 2.96–4.14) every 1000 days of mechanical ventilation, respectively. The estimated baseline monthly change in the adherence to the mechanical ventilation bundle was 0.4% (95%CI: −0.3–1.2%, p = 0.31) and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.2–2.2%, p < 0.01) before and after the implementation of the intervention, respectively. These results were consistent across our statistical quality control analysis. Conclusions The implementation of experiential learning strategies improves the adherence to bundles in the care of mechanically ventilated critically ill adult patients. Such strategies also decrease the incidence rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Both effects appear to remain constant during long-term follow-up.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".