De‐implementing low‐value continuous pulse oximetry practice in infants hospitalized with bronchiolitis: A multicentre qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical trial evidence supports the routine use of intermittent pulse oximetry in stabilized infants hospitalized with bronchiolitis. However, continuous pulse oximetry use is common. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand the barriers and facilitators to de-implement continuous pulse oximetry and implement intermittent pulse oximetry in infants hospitalized with stabilized bronchiolitis. METHODS: This multicentre qualitative study interviewed attending pediatricians, residents, nurses, respiratory therapists, and caregivers of infants hospitalized with bronchiolitis at hospitals in Ontario, Canada, to explore beliefs, attitudes, and experiences regarding pulse oximetry use in bronchiolitis management. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis to understand barriers and facilitators to practice change, mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) domains. RESULTS: Sixty-seven participants from six hospitals were interviewed using individual interviews and focus groups. Healthcare providers emphasized the importance of identifying and understanding who is responsible for bedside pulse oximetry practice (physicians vs. nurses). Clinical experience, knowledge of guidelines, importance versus competing priorities, and the tensions among team members due to practice variation in monitoring, influenced monitoring practice. Nurses believed in the advantages of intermittent monitoring (reduced alarm fatigue, facilitation of timely discharges, and reduced workload). Clinicians identified ways to clarify indications for continuous monitoring (based on patient risk factors), versus indications to transition to intermittent monitoring (established oral feeding, sleeping without desaturations). Caregivers did not express a clear preference for monitoring type; rather, they described the need for clear communication around interpreting monitor readings, management decisions, and care transitions. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding professional roles, clarity around local practice standards and supporting families' understanding of pulse oximetry practice is essential for practice change. These findings may inform hospital quality improvement efforts to de-implement continuous monitoring in bronchiolitis hospital 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 | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".