Evaluation of emergency care education and triage implementation: an observational study at a hospital in rural Liberia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In Liberia, emergency care is still in its early development. In 2019, two emergency care and triage education sessions were done at J. J. Dossen Hospital in Southeastern Liberia. The observational study objectives evaluated key process outcomes before and after the educational interventions. METHODS: analyses were used to test for significance. ORs were calculated for key predetermined process measures. RESULTS: There were 8222 patient visits recorded that were included in our analysis. Patients in the post-intervention 1 group had higher odds of having a documented full set of vital signs compared with the baseline group (16% vs 3.5%, OR: 5.4 (95% CI: 4.3 to 6.7)). After triage implementation, patients who were triaged were 16 times more likely to have a full set of vitals compared with those who were not triaged. Similarly, compared with the baseline group, patients in the post-intervention 1 group had higher odds of having a glucose documented if they presented with altered mental status or a neurologic complaint (37% vs 30%, OR: 1.7 (95% CI: 1.3 to 2.2)), documented antibiotic administration if they had a presumed bacterial infection (87% vs 35%, OR: 12.8 (95% CI: 8.8 to 17.1)), documented malaria test if presenting with fever (76% vs 61%, OR: 2.05 (95% CI: 1.37 to 3.08)) or documented repeat set of vitals if presenting with shock (25% vs 6.6%, OR: 8.85 (95% CI: 1.67 to 14.06)). There was no significant difference in the above process outcomes between the education interventions. CONCLUSION: This study showed improvement in most process measures between the baseline and post-intervention 1 groups, benefits that persisted post-intervention 2, thus supporting the importance of short-course education interventions to durably improve facility-based 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".