A Delphi Survey of Canadian Respiratory Therapists’ Practice Statements on Pediatric Mechanical Ventilation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pediatric mechanical ventilation practice guidelines are not well established; therefore, the European Society for Paediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC) developed consensus recommendations on pediatric mechanical ventilation management in 2017. However, the guideline’s applicability in different health care settings is unknown. This study aimed to determine the consensus on pediatric mechanical ventilation practices from Canadian respiratory therapists’ (RTs) perspectives and consensually validate aspects of the ESPNIC guideline. METHODS: A 3-round modified electronic Delphi survey was conducted; contents were guided by ESPNIC. Participants were RTs with at least 5 years of experience working in standalone pediatric ICUs or units with dedicated pediatric intensive care beds across Canada. Round 1 collected open-text feedback, and subsequent rounds gathered feedback using a 6-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as ≥ 75% agreement; if consensus was unmet, statements were revised for re-ranking in the subsequent round. RESULTS: Fifty-two RTs from 14 different pediatric facilities participated in at least one of the 3 rounds. Rounds 1, 2, and 3 had a response rate of 80%, 93%, and 96%, respectively. A total of 59 practice statements achieved consensus by the end of round 3, categorized into 10 sections: (1) noninvasive ventilation and high-flow oxygen therapy, (2) tidal volume and inspiratory pressures, (3) breathing frequency and inspiratory times, (4) PEEP and F IO 2 , (5) advanced modes of ventilation, (6) weaning, (7) physiological targets, (8) monitoring, (9) general, and (10) equipment adjuncts. Cumulative text feedback guided the formation of the clinical remarks to supplement these practice statements. CONCLUSIONS: This was the first study to survey RTs for their perspectives on the general practice of pediatric mechanical ventilation management in Canada, generally aligning with the ESPNIC guideline. These practice statements considered information from health organizations and institutes, supplemented with clinical remarks. Future studies are necessary to verify and understand these practices’ effectiveness.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".