Pediatric Transport Safety Collaborative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives In Canada, critically ill pediatric patients require transfer to a tertiary care center for definitive medical and surgical management. Some studies suggest that family accompaniment could compromise care; currently, limited research has examined patient safety and outcomes during pediatric critical care transport with family presence, and no Canada-specific data currently exists. The primary objective of this study was to compare the rate of adverse events during the transport of pediatric patients by a specialized pediatric critical care transport team with parental accompaniment to those without parental accompaniment. Secondary objectives included whether geographic or patient-specific factors affected rates of parental accompaniment and if parental presence during transport was related to patient outcomes. Methods Retrospective cohort study in a pediatric critical care unit convenience sample at an academic children's hospital. Inclusion criteria constituted all patients younger than 18 years who were admitted to the pediatric critical care unit after interfacility transport by the London Health Sciences Center Neonatal Pediatric Transport Team between April 1, 2018, and April 30, 2020, inclusive. Adverse event rates, patient characteristics, and clinical outcomes were compared. Results There were 357 transports eligible for analysis. Of these, there were 180 transports with, and 177 without, parental accompaniment. The primary outcome was adverse event occurrence using the composite definition of adverse events, previously defined by a Canadian consensus process, which included patient-, transport provider-, laboratory-, and system/vehicle-related safety factors. The occurrence of adverse events was not significantly different between transports with and without parental accompaniment, 49.4% and 54.8%, respectively (odds ratio, 0.80; P = 0.311). Conclusions This is the first study to compare the effect on adverse event rate and clinically relevant outcomes between transports with and without parental presence during interfacility pediatric critical care transport. Our study found no significant difference in the adverse event rate between transports with and without parental presence.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.013 |
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".