Faculty Opinions recommendation of Standardized multidisciplinary protocol improves handover of cardiac surgery patients to the intensive care unit.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the implementation of a standardized handover protocol could reduce the number of errors occurring during patient transitions from the operating room to the intensive care unit.DESIGN: Prospective, interventional study.SETTING: Pediatric cardiac intensive care unit.SUBJECTS: Seventy-nine patient handovers in patients transitioning from the operating room to the cardiac intensive care unit after congenital cardiac surgery.INTERVENTIONS: A preintervention assessment of patient handovers was obtained by direct observation using a standardized checklist. A teamwork-driven handover process and protocol was developed using traditional and novel quality-improvement techniques. The postimplementation observational assessment of handovers was performed using the same preintervention assessment tool. Preintervention and postintervention data metrics were analyzed and compared.MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Forty-one and 38 observations were performed in the preintervention and postintervention periods, respectively. Protocol implementation improved key areas of the handover process. Technical errors per handover were reduced from 6.24 to 1.52 (p < .0001), and critical verbal handoff information omissions were reduced from 6.33 to 2.38 (p < .0001) per handover. There was no change in duration of either the verbal handoff briefing or the overall handover process. Caregivers noted improvement in teamwork and handoff content received after the intervention.CONCLUSIONS: A formal, structured handover process for pediatric patients transitioning to the intensive care unit after cardiac surgery can reduce medical errors that occur during the admission process and improve teamwork among caregivers. PMID: 21057370
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 | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.004 |
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".