The Impact of Standardized Interprofessional Rounds on Critically Ill Patients in the Emergency Department: A Quality Improvement Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & Local Problem ED boarded ICU patients are generally not included in interprofessional ICU rounds. The project objective was to implement interprofessional rounds in the ED on boarded ICU patients. Methods & Interventions ICU patients in the ED were followed for two months from admission to transfer. The primary outcome was feasibility of ED ICU rounds, measured as the proportion of days on which rounds occurred. Secondary outcomes included communication quality, time to oral intake, and DVT prophylaxis documentation. Results A total of 92 patients were included in this project. Rounds occurred on 33 of 36 possible days. Following rounds, nurses and physicians reported improved communication. New DVT prophylaxis orders were written for 42% of cases, and 61 near miss events were corrected. Time from patient ED presentation to first oral intake decreased from 28 to 17 hours. Conclusions Interprofessional rounds in the ED are feasible, improve patient care, and enhance communication among team members.
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 | 0.016 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".