Remote triage in paediatric critical care: A Canadian provincial-wide cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To describe remote triage of ‘potentially’ critically ill or injured children in a western Canadian province and to examine the associated factors with ‘missings’ in vital sign items recorded in centralized telephone triage consultations. Methods This is a provincial-wide prospective cohort study. We included all children under 17 years of age consulted through the central transport coordination centres in Alberta from June 2016 to July 2017. We labeled a value as ‘missing’ when the actual value was not identified in the audio records. Results In total, 429 cases were included in this study. The median duration of triage calls was 6.8 minutes. Although the patients’ demographics and primary diagnoses were similar, backgrounds of the referring physicians and hospitals were significantly different between the two cohorts (i.e., patients referred to Calgary versus Edmonton). The proportion of ‘missings’ among the vital sign items varied significantly, in which capillary refilling time (60%), pupils (86%), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) (79%), and level of respiratory effort (50%) were not well recorded, whereas heart rate (proportion of ‘missings’: 12%), SpO2 (20%), and respiratory rate (26%) were recorded reasonably well. The lower proportion of ‘missings’ was observed in older aged patients for several vital sign items including systolic blood pressure and GCS. Conclusions The proportion of missing vital signs recorded varied significantly. The ‘missings’ could be associated with referring physician’s background and patients’ demographics such as ‘age’ that should be considered for the improvement of triage quality in the future.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".