Ambient Room Temperatures in a Burn Intensive Care Unit—A Quality Improvement Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Patients with major burn injuries are particularly susceptible to hypothermia. The ability to maintain and rapidly increase ambient temperatures may reduce the impact of hypothermia and the hypermetabolic response. The purpose of this study was to determine ambient patient room temperatures in a burn intensive care unit (ICU) and to evaluate our ability to adjust these temperatures. Methods: The ambient temperatures of 9 burn ICU patient rooms were recorded hourly over a 6-month period in an American Burn Association-verified burn centre. Temperatures were recorded using wall-mounted smart sensors, transmitted to a mobile smartphone application via Bluetooth, and then exported to Excel for analysis. On 2 predetermined dates, thermostats in all rooms were simultaneously set to maximum, and monitored over 3 h. This represented a sound change initiative, and replicated a medical order to increase the ambient temperature during critical stages of patient care. Results: We recorded 4394 individual hourly temperature measurements for each of the 9 rooms. The mean ambient temperature was 23.5 ± 0.3 °C (range 22.8-24). After intervention 1, ambient temperatures increased <2 °C in 7 rooms and by only 2 °C-3 °C in the other 2 rooms. The overall mean increase in temperature over 3 h across all rooms was 1.03 °C ± 1.19 °C (range −0.88 to 3.26). Following intervention 2, temperatures could be increased by ≥2 °C in only 2 rooms with an overall mean increase in temperature of only 0.76 °C ± 0.99 °C (range −0.29 to 2.43) across all rooms. Conclusions: The burn ICU rooms were relatively cool and our ability locally to adjust ambient temperatures quickly was limited. Burn centres should have regular facility assessments to assess whether ambient temperatures can be adjusted expeditiously when required.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".