MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282926327 · doi:10.1002/bco2.173

Active involvement of nursing staff in reporting and grading complication‐intervention events—Protocol and results of the CAMUS Pilot Nurse Delphi Study

2022· article· en· W4282926327 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Soliman, Benjamin Thomas, Pasqualina Santaguida, Nathan Lawrentschuk, Evie Mertens, Gianluca Giannarini, Patrick Y. Wuethrich, Michael Wu, Muhammad Shamim Khan, Rajesh Nair, Ramesh Thurairaja, Ben Challacombe, Prokar Dasgupta, Sachin Malde, Niall M. Corcoran, Philippe E. Spiess, Philip Dundee, Marc A. Furrer

Bibliographic record

VenueBJUI Compass · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersKrebsliga Schweiz
KeywordsDelphi methodMedicineGrading (engineering)NursingPatient safetyDelphiFamily medicineHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: The aim of this study is to gain experienced nursing perspective on current and future complication reporting and grading in Urology, establish the CAMUS CCI and quality control the use of the Clavien-Dindo Classification (CDC) in nursing staff. Subjects and Methods: The 12-part REDCap-based Delphi survey was developed in conjunction with expert nurse, urologist and methodologist input. Certified local and international inpatient and outpatient nurses specialised in urology, perioperative nurses and urology-specific advanced practice nurses/nurse practitioners will be included. A minimum sample size of 250 participants is targeted. The survey assesses participant demographics, nursing experience and opinion on complication reporting and the proposed CAMUS reporting recommendations; grading of intervention events using the existing CDC and the proposed CAMUS Classification; and rating various clinical scenarios. Consensus will be defined as ≥75% agreement. If consensus is not reached, subsequent Delphi rounds will be performed under Steering Committee guidance. Results: Twenty participants completed the pilot survey. Median survey completion time was 58 min (IQR 40-67). The survey revealed that 85% of nursing participants believe nurses should be involved in future complication reporting and grading but currently have poor confidence and inadequate relevant background education. Overall, 100% of participants recognise the universal demand for reporting consensus and 75% hold a preference towards the CAMUS System. Limitations include variability in nursing experience, complexity of supplemental grades and survey duration. Conclusion: The integration of experienced nursing opinion and participation in complication reporting and grading systems in a modern and evolving hospital infrastructure may facilitate the assimilation of otherwise overlooked safety data. Incorporation of focused teaching into routine nursing education will be essential to ensure quality control and stimulate awareness of complication-related burden. This, in turn, has the potential to improve patient counselling and quality of care.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.210
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.280 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJUI CompassSame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207