MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376603414 · doi:10.1093/jbcr/irad045.145

548 Volatile Sedation in the Burn Intensive Care Unit: A Quality Improvement Initiative

2023· article· en· W4376603414 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Nardi, Lauren Wong, Alan D. Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity of OttawaSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSedationSedativeDeliriumAnesthesiaIsofluraneIntensive care unitHydromorphoneMechanical ventilationEmergency medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Achieving optimal sedation and analgesia in patients with major burn injuries can be challenging. Reliance on benzodiazepines results in longer durations of mechanical ventilation, delirium and withdrawal. Recent evidence and local experience in our critical care unit has supported the application of volatile agents such as isoflurane for sedation. A local audit determined that 70% of mechanically ventilated patients in our burn center are managed on 3 or more continuous sedative infusions. The aim of this initiative was to reduce the number of continuous sedative infusions to maintain target sedation range (SAS 2-4) by 25% in the 48 hour period following initiation of isoflurane. Methods A multifaceted education approach was applied to engage all bedside staff, including burn surgeons, respiratory therapists and nurses. Training occurred though self-directed modules, in-person learning and just-in-time training upon new patient initiation. Data from the 18 month period since implementation were collected retrospectively via manual chart review. Results Since implementation in March 2021, 18 patients were sedated using isoflurane in our burn intensive care unit (ICU). Within 48 hours of isoflurane initiation, 50% (9/18) of patients had a decrease in the number of sedative infusions and 56% (10/18) obtained an optimal level of sedation using isoflurane and hydromorphone alone. Conclusions Volatile agents provide a safe and reliable method of sedation in mechanically ventilated patients with major burn injuries. Despite limitations related to specialized equipment and training, the introduction of this strategy has been well received, with positive feedback relating to both ease of implementation and titration. Applicability of Research to Practice Patients with major burn injuries require multiple painful surgeries and dressing changes. Volatile sedation has been shown to reduce the number of sedative infusions, specifically, our reliance on benzodiazepines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.163
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207