MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082005002 · doi:10.25316/ir-15081

Nurses' perception of readiness for mass casualty events involving children

2020· article· en· W3082005002 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rosemary Thuss

Bibliographic record

VenueVIURRSpace (Vancouver Island University) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionPsychologyApplied psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After a mass casualty event, there is an expectation that hospitals will safely care for all patients—adults and children alike—who require medical and non-medical attention, regardless of any challenges they may face. In Canada, there are no national emergency preparedness standards for hospitals to follow, and coordination amongst hospital networks across the nation is fragmented at best. Within healthcare, there is an assumption that when resources are limited, patient care that is appropriate for adults is also suitable for children. However, children have unique physical and developmental care needs and they are not simply small versions of their adult counterparts. During mass casualty events where children are involved, hospitals must be ready to receive and provide patient care for both children and adults. However, many studies have shown that due to a lack of funding, resources, and time nurses consistently report feeling unprepared to care for children during mass casualty events. This study focuses on understanding how prepared pediatric-trained nurses are to respond to mass casualty events involving children. Registered Nurse (RN) participants responded to a survey with questions that included four domains: professional demographics and employment history, experience working as an RN in a mass casualty event, knowledge questions related to current organizational mass casualty procedures, and perceptions on professional preparedness. Results of the study found that 74% of participants agree that a mass casualty event involving primarily children, requiring what is known as a Code Orange activation will occur at some point during their career. Nurse participants do not currently receive regular training related to a Code Orange activation and are overall dissatisfied with the little training provided. The study found that the nurses believe emergency preparedness is important to their professional development. The importance of regular training to improve hospital readiness throughout a nurse’s career, beginning in nursing school, is discussed. Other factors that can increase perceived preparedness include years of clinical nursing experience along with experience in specialty services such as emergency care and critical care.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVIURRSpace (Vancouver Island University)Same topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207