Trauma Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic. A Canadian Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has placed major limitations on trauma health care systems. This survey aims to identify how Canadian trauma centres altered their processes to care for injured patients and protect their staff during the pandemic. METHODS: A survey was distributed to trauma directors at level 1 Canadian adult trauma centres in July 2020. Questions included changes made to the trauma service in preparation for the pandemic, modification to clinical practice and expected lasting modifications after the pandemic. RESULTS: The response rate was 68.4%. All trauma centres modified their treatment and investigation protocols for the pandemic. Most respondents adopted online platforms for meetings and educational activities and used simulation to prepare for COVID-19-infected trauma patients. The approach to who would intubate trauma patients, which trauma patients should be tested for COVID-19 and who should use N95 ventilators, varied among the sites surveyed. CONCLUSION: All centres modified some of their treatment and investigation protocols for the pandemic but not all modifications were adopted universally. Knowing these steps and comparing them with other global centres will help organize disaster plans for the current and future pandemics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".