Exploring Perceptions of Education for Central Venous Catheter Care at Home
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pediatric oncology patients with an external central venous catheter (CVC) in situ can be discharged from the hospital. Caregivers are expected to learn how to care for the CVC prior to discharge while also dealing with their child's new cancer diagnosis. This study aimed to evaluate the perceptions of a CVC education program received by caregivers to identify opportunities for improvement. A qualitative study was conducted in 3 stages, using an evidence-based co-design approach, involving caregivers and one adolescent patient discharged from the British Columbia Children's Hospital Oncology/Hematology/BMT inpatient unit. Stage I involved semi-structured interviews to gain feedback on the existing CVC education program. In Stage II, educational resources were updated or developed and implemented. For Stage III, the revised CVC education program was evaluated through a focus group and semi-structured interviews. Interview transcripts were analyzed using QSR NVivo ® . The original CVC education program was overall well received. Repeated instruction and support provided by nurses was reported to have increased confidence with performing CVC skills. Participants appreciated the multimodal approach to meet learning needs and expressed interest in additional visual aids. Inconsistencies in nurses’ practice and offers of “tips and tricks” were identified to be challenging for caregivers while learning a new skill. Videos depicting CVC care were developed to provide an additional visual tool, decreased inconsistencies in care, and support to caregivers at home. Caring for a CVC at home is challenging and overwhelming for caregivers. A standardized multimodal education program is required to support caregivers at home.
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".