Oscillometric blood pressure measurement in a neonatal intensive care unit: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The study aimed to evaluate how neonatal blood pressure measurement with the oscillometric method is performed by a nursing team, including patient preparation, documentation, materials, and equipment. Method: This cross-sectional study was conducted in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) through direct observation of procedures performed by nursing staff. A systematic script was used for observation and documentation of the procedure, patient reparation, and handling of equipment. The results were analyzed through inferential statistics. Results: In a total of 150 observations, 60% or more of steps were classified as correct in 13 of the 26 target items. There was no difference between RNs and nurse technicians concerning the procedure´s success rate (p = 0.3933). Blood pressure measurement was obtained in the first attempt, according to the procedure´s adequacy (p <0.0001). Conclusion: Published recommendations for oscillometric blood pressure measurement were not followed completely. Continuing education should focus on routine procedures to ensure essential aspects 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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".