Tracheostomy and long‐term invasive ventilation decision‐making in children: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An increasing number of children are surviving critical illnesses requiring tracheostomy/long-term ventilation (LTV). This scoping review seeks to collate the available evidence on decision-making for tracheostomy/LTV in children. Systematic searches of electronic databases and websites were conducted for articles and reports. Inclusion criteria included: (1) children 0-18 years old; (2) described use of tracheostomy or tracheostomy/LTV; and (3) information on recommendations for tracheostomy decision-making or decision-making experiences of family-caregivers or health care providers. Articles not written in English were excluded. Of the 4463 records identified through database search and other methods, a total of 84 articles, 2 dissertations, 1 book chapter, 3 consensus statement/society guidelines, and 8 pieces of grey literature were included. Main thematic domains identified were: (1) legal and moral standards for decision-making; (2) decision-making models, roles of decision-makers, and decisional aids towards a shared decision-making model; (3) experiences and perspectives of decision-makers; (4) health system and society considerations; and (5) conflict resolution and legal considerations. A high degree of uncertainty and complexity is involved in tracheostomy/LTV decision-making. There is a need for a standardized decision-support process that is consistent with a child's best interests and shared decision-making. Strategies for optimizing communication and mechanism for managing disputes are needed.
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) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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".