The level of adherence to best-practice guidelines by interprofessional teams with and without acute care nurse practitioners in cardiac surgery: A study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute care nurse practitioners (ACNPs) in postoperative cardiac surgery settings provide significant benefits to patients and organizations. Recent studies have suggested that ACNPs increase the level of adherence to best-practice guidelines by interprofessional teams. It is however, unknown whether interprofessional teams with ACNP are associated with higher levels of adherence to best-practice guidelines compared to interprofessional teams without ACNPs. Furthermore, no extraction tool is available to measure the level of adherence to best-practice guidelines by interprofessional teams in postoperative cardiac surgery settings. This project aims to measure and examine the level of adherence to best-practice guidelines of interprofessional teams with and without ACNPs in a postoperative cardiac surgery setting in Québec, Canada. METHODS: A retrospective observational study will be conducted of 300 patients hospitalized between January 1, 2019 and January 31, 2020 in a postoperative cardiac surgery unit in Québec, Canada. Data will be collected from patient health records and electronic databases. An extraction tool will be developed based on systematic review of the literature, and will include best-practice guidelines and confounding variables related to patient and interprofessional teams' characteristics. Content and criterion validation, and a pilot-test will be conducted for the development of the tool. A multivariate linear regression model will be developed and adjusted for confounding variables to examine the association between interprofessional teams with and without ACNPs, and level of adherence to best-practice guidelines by those teams. DISCUSSION: This project represents the first study to measure and examine the level of adherence to best-practice guidelines by interprofessional teams with and without ACNPs in a postoperative cardiac surgery setting. The findings of this project will generate empirical data focusing on the contribution of ACNPs within interprofessional teams, and ultimately enhance the delivery of high quality and evidence-based care for patients and families.
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 | 0.048 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".