MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281612193 · doi:10.29390/cjrt-2020-065

A survey of Canadian respiratory therapists working in the COVID-19 pandemic: The RRT perspective

2022· article· en· W4281612193 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Claire Ward, Jillian F. Banfield, Paul Brousseau

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control and Ventilation
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicFeelingPersonal protective equipmentCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Computer-assisted web interviewingAnxietyPerspective (graphical)MedicinePsychologySevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Family medicineNursingSocial psychologyPsychiatryDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Registered respiratory therapists (RRTs) are heavily involved in the care of individuals infected with COVID-19. The experiences and challenges specific to the RRT profession during the pandemic have not been qualified and the aim of this study is to bridge that gap. Methods: With institutional ethics approval, a cross-sectional survey was created through the survey software Redcap and made available online from 29 May to 6 July 2020. Any RRT working in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic was eligible to participate. Responses to yes/no questions were calculated as frequencies and percentages, and free-text responses were summarized. Results: In total, 345 RRTs working in 11/13 of the provinces and territories, with varying years of experience completed the survey. The results reflected impacts of the pandemic that affected RRTs in a variety of ways at work, from being reassigned (30.7%) to caring for COVID-19 positive patients (57.4%) and intubated COVID-19 positive patients (50.7%). RRTs experienced communication issues around guidelines (66.7%) and some departments had run out of personal protective equipment (PPE; 19%). RRTs were personally impacted, including feeling overwhelmed by new and frequently changing guidelines (89.6%) and feeling concerned for themselves or their family members becoming infected because of their proximity to COVID-19 positive patients (89%). Discussion: RRTs reported being required to work more during the pandemic. The unpredictability and constantly changing schedules were sources of stress and anxiety. RRTs were faced with issues of overwhelming amounts of new information and had difficulty in disseminating it in a timely manner. Lack of guidance and lack of confidence in the current protocols added to the confusion, anxiety, and stress. RRTs were at the center of many high-risk moments for contracting the virus (intubation, extubation), and PPE shortages were a major challenge reported. RRTs working during the pandemic have been concerned for their own health and the health of their family members. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic adds another layer of stress for RRT professionals who are working in high-risk situations and feel anxious, overwhelmed, and concerned about their personal safety.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Respiratory TherapySame topicInfection Control and VentilationFrench-language works237,207