MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229069932 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2022.26804

Cross-Training Nurses to Support an Intensive Care Unit during a Pandemic: An Urban Community Hospital Experience

2022· article· en· W4229069932 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jennifer Reguindin, Kim Capoccitti, Victoria Serapion

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsContinental (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLARITYPandemicNursingUnit (ring theory)Intensive care unitBest practiceTraining (meteorology)Session (web analytics)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicineMedical educationPsychologyBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hospitals had to create new practices, training programs and roles due to the COVID-19 pandemic. An urban community hospital enacted written policies to cross-train nurses for supporting patients in an intensive care setting. This paper shares the planning, implementation, evaluation and revision of a support nurse training for a teambased intensive care unit model. Learning evaluations show that tailoring the education to the type of nurse is received more positively than a general skills training session. Leaders are encouraged to ensure that teams have role clarity and practice supports to be successful.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.150
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207