Évaluation d’une filière rapide de prise en charge infirmière des traumatismes de la cheville et/ou du pied aux urgences : étude pilote : ATENA study : Ankle Trauma an Emergency Nurse Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Our aim was to evaluate the ability of nurses to take care of an ankle and/or foot trauma as per the guidelines in effect, in a fast track area. Methods : A pilot study, prospective, monocentric, longitudinal, without randomisation, has been conducted in the Adult Emergency Department of the CHU Nord Grenoble-Alpes (CHUGA) between March and August 2020. A two months training course for nurses who volunteered for the study preceded the enrollment of patients. A telephone follow-up has been conducted at D+30. The assessment of each treatment as per the guidelines has been evaluated by a panel of experts. Results: Fourteen nurses volunteered for the study. Fifteen patients have been included on the expected sixty-six (ongoing study). It was a young population (median age : 32 years old), femal sex on 60 % of cases, with a varus equinus trauma in 86.7 % of cases, primarily in the context of a sport accident. Every radiography done was justified by the Ottawa Ankle and Foot Rules. The sensibility of the nurses for the detection of the fracture by the radiography was of 100 %. No modification of the treatment has been done following the radiologic staff meeting at D+1. No adverse event has been reported at the D+30 follow-up. Satisfaction of the patients was high. Conclusion: The setting up of a fast track area in the treatment of ankle and/or foot trauma at the Emergency Department, by trained nurses seems feasible in an efficient and secured manner.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".