MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190110867 · doi:10.5737/23688653-3221419

A call for standardized national guidelines on QT/QTc monitoring in Canada

2021· article· en· W3190110867 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Kathleen Hutton, Darlene Hutton

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œCanadian journal of critical care nursing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nurses Association
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsQT intervalContext (archaeology)PollingMedicineGuidelineConfidence intervalFamily medicineNursingMedical emergencyCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: With QT-prolonging drugs being trialed for the treatment of COVID-19, national health associations allude to the importance of proficient QT interval assessment. However, in Canada there is no policy in place that clearly identifies a single method for routine QT monitoring. Aim: To demonstrate the need for a clear Canadian guideline for the measurement of the QT/QTc interval and to advocate for a standardized approach to education. Methods: This paper uses a medical anthropological approach to scale this practice gap from the individual provider to the institutions that govern practice and education. Nurses and emergency medical personnel from hospitals across Canada were polled with questionnaires on their confidence and knowledge of assessing the QT/QTc interval. We seek to identify causes for the widespread lack of confidence that goes beyond the context of nursing and is interdisciplinary in nature. Findings: Of the 292 participants who were polled, roughly 75% report measuring the QT interval. However, more than 50% of participants are not confident in their measurement. Although critical care nurses report the highest levels of confidence, the rate of correct answers amongst the whole of participants on knowledge-based questions is shockingly low (only nine percent attempted to provide a value for the QTc; 34% of those who were unsure of the normal QTc say they were not taught). Ninety percent of participants report they do not analyze the QTc, with critical care nurses accounting for 34% of participants. Conclusion: The lack of consensus on a QTc formula and the absence of clear guidelines on this well-documented issue exacerbate the continued gap in practice observed in our findings. We urge leading organizations to create a national guideline that supports a standardized approach to QT/QTc measurement that can be taught to and used by not only critical care nurses, but everyone in healthcare who provides cardiac monitoring.

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)0.077
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.131
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.862

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0770.131
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0120.009
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0130.008
Research integrity0.0170.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2021
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œCanadian journal of critical care nursingSame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207