Postintensive Care Syndrome: Feasibly Bridging Care at a Tertiary Trauma Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advancements in critical care management have improved mortality rates of trauma patients; however, research has identified physical and psychological impairments that remain with patients for an extended time. Cognitive impairments, anxiety, stress, depression, and weakness in the postintensive care phase are an impetus for trauma centers to examine their ability to improve patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This article describes one center's efforts to intervene to address postintensive care syndrome in trauma patients. METHODS: This article describes implementing aspects of the Society of Critical Care Medicine's liberation bundle to address postintensive care syndrome in trauma patients. RESULTS: The implementation of the liberation bundle initiatives was successful and well received by trauma staff, patients, and families. It requires strong multidisciplinary commitment and adequate staffing. Continued focus and retraining are requirements in the face of staff turnover and shortages, which are real-world barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the liberation bundle was feasible. Although the initiatives were positively received by trauma patients and their families, we identified a gap in the availability of long-term outpatient services for trauma patients after discharge from the hospital.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".