VARIABILITY OF ACUTE PROCEDURAL PAIN PRACTICES IN 8 CANADIAN PAEDIATRIC HEALTH CARE CENTRES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Acute procedural pain assessment and management in paediatric clinical settings remains suboptimal. The objective of this study is to determine current procedural paediatric pain practices in 8 Canadian paediatric healthcare centres. This is the first of three inter-related projects undertaken by the CIHR Team in Children’s Pain to enhance the translation of research on pain in children. Methods Baseline data on pain assessments, pharmacological, physical, and psychological interventions during a 24-hr period were collected from 60 patient charts in each of 32 hospital units across 8 sites over a 2-month period. The types of units included medical (n = 14), surgical (n = 8), and critical care (n = 10). Results In total, 1920 patient charts were reviewed and revealed substantial variability between the 8 sites. Evidence of pain assessment ranged from 43–83% while the use of physical and psychological strategies ranged from 5–52% and 2–55%, respectively. The use of pharmacological strategies was more consistent (55–88%). Variability, although less substantial, was also observed by unit type for pain assessment (56–76%) and the use of pharmacological (58–80%), physical (21–35%), and psychological (9–17%) interventions. Conclusions There is substantial variability in paediatric pain practices across Canada. Although some variability was noted by type of unit, greater variability was observed by site, suggesting hospital culture (e.g., values, initiatives, leadership) may influence how paediatric pain is assessed and managed. These findings highlight the need for appropriate knowledge translation to better implement paediatric pain practices.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".