The Role of Canadian respiratory therapists in adult critical care (ICURT-CAN): A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE Respiratory therapists (RTs) are part of the critical care team, dedicated to providing specialized respiratory care. However, their role, regional practice variations and inclusion in the multidisciplinary team are not well described in the literature.OBJECTIVES The aim of this review was to describe: 1) the role and impact of RTs; 2) the recommendations for RT inclusion; and 3) regional differences in RT practices in adult critical care across Canada.METHODS AND MEASUREMENT A scoping review was performed. Eligible studies described the Canadian RT role in adult critical care. Data extraction was informed by the Respiratory Therapy Practice-Based Outcome Initiative Model (RT-PBOI), a conceptual model that outlines 5 domains of how RTs can contribute to patient care and resource utilization.MAIN RESULTS RTs’ roles across 22 studies were categorized into domains of the RT-PBOI model: Technical skills (n = 20), Approach to practice (n = 20), Leveraging capacity (n = 15), Strategic expertise (n = 16) and Growing value for the future (n = 17). The grey literature (n = 26) provided brief descriptions of the RT role across multiple practice settings, but common RT tasks in critical care were mechanical ventilation management and participation in specialized care teams. One grey literature report recommended RTs to participate as critical response team members and two studies briefly mentioned regional differences in RT roles.CONCLUSION There were minimal studies to report on the impact of RTs in Canadian, adult critical care. Future studies are needed to evaluate the RT role and their value in improving patient care and resource utilization.
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 | 0.027 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".