Improving Arterial Puncture Success in Neonatal Patients Using Transillumination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Arterial punctures are a common procedure used to obtain blood samples for lab tests that guide treatment of neonatal patients. These punctures can be painful and have associated risks, emphasizing the importance of keeping attempts to a minimum. PURPOSE: The purpose of this quality improvement initiative was to determine whether using transillumination to visualize arteries before and while obtaining a blood sample would improve outcomes in neonatal patients. METHODS: Quantitative data were collected pre- and postimplementation of education for the use of a transillumination device for arterial punctures on neonates in a level III neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Outcomes followed included the success rate, average time to obtain a blood sample, and the average number of sticks to obtain a blood sample. Data were collected on 47 blood draw attempts in the control group (preimplementation) and 19 blood draw attempts in the experimental group (postimplementation). RESULTS: A statistical analysis concluded that the use of the studied transillumination device does positively affect the incidence of successful blood draws, particularly for the novice NICU nurse. In addition, the average number of sticks to obtain a blood sample significantly decreased in the experimental group. Finally, the average time to obtain a blood sample using the device was not impacted in this study. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND RESEARCH: Use of a transillumination device does appear to result in improved outcomes for arterial punctures in neonatal patients. More research is needed to confirm these findings due to the small sample size of the study.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".