MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3120529835 · doi:10.14288/1.0394829

Use of the canadian c-spine rule by emergency department nurses

2020· article· en· W3120529835 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrea Jennifer Greene

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentMedical emergencySPINE (molecular biology)MedicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Approximately 1.3 million Canadians present to the Emergency Department (ED) annually with a suspected cervical spine (c-spine) injury secondary to blunt force trauma. These patients are often alert and hemodynamically stable with less than 1% suffering a cervical spine fracture. Developed and validated at the Ottawa Research Institute, the Canadian C-Spine Rule is a highly sensitive clinical decision tool designed to mitigate the unnecessary use of radiography in alert, stable, trauma patients. Aim: The aim of this study is to explore the feasibility of developing a clinical practice guideline implementing the use of the Canadian C-Spine Rule by ED nurses working in Vancouver, British Columbia. Literature Review: Previous research demonstrates that when used by both ED physicians and registered nurses the Canadian C-Spine Rule enables accurate and reliable identification of trauma patients at low-risk for cervical spine injuries and is associated with decreased use of unwarranted radiography. In the ED, registered nurses do not routinely assess the cervical spine of alert, stable trauma patients; however, enabling nurses to remove cervical immobilization by utilizing the Canadian C-Spine Rule, could improve patient comfort, increase patient flow and optimize nurses’ roles and responsibilities in busy EDs. Methods: A short electronic survey was sent to members of the Vancouver General Hospital (VGH) ED Quality Council for input. Findings from this survey and informal interviews were utilized to perform a SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threats) analysis related to educating local ED nurses to clear the cervical spine of low-risk trauma patients. Results: Respondents noted potential facilitators of this project included a strong nursing education team and highly motivated frontline nurses who are keenly interested in educational opportunities. Potential barriers identified within VGH ED could be a lack of physician support, nursing resistance due perceived increased workload, competing priorities for nursing education and a lack of low-risk trauma patients presenting to VGH ED immobilized in cervical collars. Conclusion: Prior to implementing this change into clinical practice, key recommendations based on stakeholder engagement and the SWOT analysis addressing internal and external factors facilitating or impeding practice change should be considered.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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 score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score0.604

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology→French-language works237,207→