Experience of the nursing team concerning the care of patients with meningitis attended in emergency department
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To unveil the experience of the nursing team in relation to the care of patients with meningitis attended in emergency departments.Methods: Exploratory and qualitative study made with 13 nurses and 12 nursing technicians from the emergency sector of a public hospital located in Northeast of Brazil. The data was gathered through an interview using a semi-structured script. The interviews were transcribed, processed in the Iramuteq software and analyzed with the descending hierarchical classification.Results: Three categories were obtained and they were referent to the accomplished interventions (administration of medication, patient’s isolation, contribution in the accomplishment of exams, use of individual protection equipment and humanization), to the experienced feelings (fear and unsafety) and the disease’s suggestive alerts (headache, neck stiffness, changes in the conscience level and vomit).Conclusions: The nursing experience in the care of patients with meningitis, in the emergency sector, was shown to be permeated by the accomplishment of interventions, feelings, and knowledge about the symptoms.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it