MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230734246 · doi:10.1155/2015/680497

Selected Abstracts from the Critical Care Canada Forum 2014

2015· article· en· W4230734246 on OpenAlexaffabout
John Centofanti, Duan, Swinton, Perri, Waugh, Soth, Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Respiratory Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMEDLINEFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Care of critically ill patients is dependent on a team of multidisciplinary clinicians working collaboratively.Although substantial communication occurs during morning ICU rounds, many factors jeopardize clear patient care communication and optimal patient care.In February 2012, a daily goals checklist (DGC) was introduced at our tertiary care, university-affiliated medical-surgical ICU for use during morning rounds.OBJECTIVES: To understand the perspectives and attitudes of ICU clinicians about use of the DGC, then to improve the checklist by utilizing feedback from front line clinicians.METHODS: We utilized a mixed-methods design.(1) Field Observations: 2 investigators conducted field observations to understand how the DGC was used for 80 ICU patient rounds over 6 days.(2) Document Analysis: 72 completed DGCs from observed rounds were analyzed.(3) Interviews:We conducted semi-structured interviews of 56 clinicians, analyzing transcripts using a qualitative descriptive approach and content analysis.Triangulation was achieved by a multidisciplinary investigative team using 2 research methods and 3 data sources.Incorporating the feedback obtained from qualitative interviews using integrated knowledge translation (KT), we revised the DGC.We performed member checking at a multidisciplinary Quality Council meeting, intensivists' meeting, and with bedside nurses on site.As end-of-grant KT, we presented our findings at several scientific meetings, locally and internationally.RESULTS: Clinicians identified the DGC to be a multipurpose tool impacting on 3 main domains: communication, patient care and education.It enhanced multidisciplinary communication, identified new patient care issues, and prompted teaching opportunities on rounds.The DGC was completed for 93% of our observed rounds, and appeared to foster closed-loop communication between nurses and physicians.Through qualitative analysis of interviews and subsequent member checking, we identified 4 themes related to enhancing the DGC: purpose, content, function and format.Recommendations follow (1) Purpose: expand explicit goal-setting to as many patient domains as possible, and systematic followup of progress between rounds.(2) Content: expand the physiotherapy section given the important role of rehabilitation in recovery.(3) Function: utilize the DGC to incorporate recent sedation guidelines.(4) Format: use phrases to facilitate critical thinking, and free text options for further context.Our KT activities led to ongoing collaboration at our own centre, and from other cardiac surgery and oncology ICUs locally. CONCLUSION:The DGC at St Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton ICU is a locally developed tool that has helped to enhance communication, patient care and education.Integrated KT as the study was ongoing elicited ways to further enhance its use requiring periodic revision of purpose, content, function and format.End-of-grant KT generated feedback from front line clinicians for further modification before reintroducing the revised DGC into the ICU.Further study will be required to expand the DGC into other ICUs, and to assess its impact on patient-important outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.845

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2530.049

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Respiratory JournalSame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207