Central venous access device locking practices in the adult critical care setting: a single-centre, observational study establishing duration of locking per catheter lumen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Central line complications remain a problem in critical care patient populations. Various interventions to prevent or treat complications, such as central line-associated bloodstream infection and occlusion, have been the focus of recent research. Although alternative catheter locking solutions have been shown to be effective in other patient populations, their applicability to the critical care setting remains unclear. Due to the high acuity of critical care patients, it is uncertain whether their central lines remain locked for a duration long enough for alternative locking solutions to provide any effect. METHODS: This single-centre, prospective, observational study aimed to gather information about the length of time central line lumens remain in a locked state in the average critical care patient. Baseline rates of various central line complications were also tracked. RESULTS: Results of this study indicate that the majority of central lines will have at least one lumen locked for an average of 36.6% of their time in situ. CONCLUSIONS: It is anticipated that this length of time provides enough exposure for alternative locking solutions to potentially make a difference in central line complications in this patient population. Results of this study can be used for planning future multi-centre, randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of novel central line locking solutions to prevent central line complications in critically ill patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".