Randomised Controlled Trial of a Pediatric Tracheostomy Care Education Program for Homecare Nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the immediate and sustained knowledge retention and sense of self-efficacy of homecare nurses following completion of a standardized competency-based tracheostomy education course. Safe discharge of children requiring tracheostomy with or without ventilation relies on the competence of homecare nurses. Study Design: Pragmatic, randomized controlled trial of 44 homecare nurses. Participants were randomized into the intervention group (n=21), which received the tracheostomy course, or the control group (n=23), which received an enterostomy and vascular access course. Multiple-choice question (MCQ) knowledge assessments and self-efficacy questionnaires were administered to both groups pre-course and post-course at 6 week, 3 month, 6 month, and 12 month follow-ups. Results: Twenty participants in the intervention group and 19 in the control group were included. Four withdrew from the study and two crossed over from the control into the intervention arm. The change in mean self-efficacy scores (total score = 100) was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group at 6 weeks (intervention (mean ± SD): 18.6±14.5; control: 6.6±20.4; p=0.04) and 3 months (intervention: 19.6±14.2; control: 5.2±17.0; p=0.007), and trended higher at 6 months (intervention: 18.0±14.5; control: 6.9±24.1; p=0.1) and 12 months (intervention: 16.9±15.0; control: 16.8±20.5; p=1.0). The change in mean MCQ assessment scores (total score = 20) trended higher in the intervention group than in the control group at 6 weeks (intervention (mean ± SD): 1.8±2.2; control: 1.6, ±2.9; p=0.8). Conclusions: Homecare nurses who attended the tracheostomy course demonstrated a higher sense of self-efficacy at long-term follow-up.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".