Documentation in Pediatric Microlaryngoscopy/Bronchoscopy: International Modified Delphi Consensus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Complete and accurate documentation of surgical procedures is essential for optimizing patient care, yet significant variation in operative notes persists within and across institutions. We sought to reach consensus on the most important components of an operative note for pediatric microlaryngoscopy and bronchoscopy. METHODS: A modified Delphi consensus process was used. A checklist for operative documentation, created by fellowship-trained pediatric otolaryngologists-head and neck surgeons, was sent to surgeons identified as experts in pediatric laryngoscopy and bronchoscopy. In the first round, items were rated as "keep" or "remove". In the second round, each item was rated on a 7-point Likert scale for importance. The mean score of each item was calculated to determine if consensus was reached. RESULTS: Overall, 43/74 (58.1%) surgeons responded to our survey. After two rounds of editing, 28 components reached consensus, 24 were near consensus, and 26 did not reach consensus. Items that reached final consensus had mean (SD) ratings of 6.12 (0.94) (range, 5.31-6.72). CONCLUSION: Pediatric otolaryngologists identified as bronchoscopy experts were able to create a checklist of essential components of an operative note for pediatric laryngoscopy and bronchoscopy using a Delphi method. Items reaching consensus included procedure name, description of breathing, grade of airway view, description of normal anatomic structures, grade of subglottic stenosis if present, presence and description of tracheobronchomalacia, presence of fistulae, cleft and rings, and several special cases including foreign body and tracheostomy management, as well as end of procedure disposition and complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 Laryngoscope, 133:1234-1238, 2023.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".