Nursing staff knowledge of parenteral nutrition –preliminary report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Parenteral nutrition provides all necessary nutrients, bypassing the gastrointestinal tract in patients in whom oral or enteral nutrition is not possible.Parenteral nutrition can be effective and safe, but unfortunately it also carries the risk of complications.Most of these can be avoided if the procedures are closely supervised and monitored by those performing them.The main aim of the study was to assess nursing staff's knowledge of parenteral nutrition. Material and methods:The study used a diagnostic survey method -the questionnaire technique.The research tool was a self-designed questionnaire and a knowledge test.One point was awarded for answering each single-choice question correctly, while 0.5 points were given for selecting each of the correct answer options for the multiplechoice questions.Results: A total of 118 respondents from intensive care, surgical, and general medicine wards took part in the survey.The level of knowledge of nursing staff about parenteral nutrition was assessed as inadequate in 72% of the cases, while a good level of knowledge was possessed by 28%.None of the respondents had a very good level of knowledge.In the majority of wards where the respondents worked, the preparation of parenteral nutrition was handled by the hospital pharmacy (54.2%).In the majority of wards where the nursing staff prepared parenteral nutrition, there was a procedure for preparing parenteral nutrition under aseptic conditions (54.4%).Conclusions: The knowledge of medical staff about parenteral nutrition was incomplete.The place of work, completion of a qualification course in anaesthesia and intensive care, having a specialisation, and having experience of the procedure for preparing parenteral nutrition under aseptic conditions all had a significant impact on the level of knowledge of the respondents.
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 | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.010 |
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".