Measuring evidence-based clinical guideline compliance in the paediatric intensive care unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based clinical care guidelines improve medical treatment by reducing error, improving outcomes and possibly lowering healthcare costs. While some data exist on individual guideline compliance, no data exist on overall compliance to multiple nuanced guidelines in a paediatric intensive care setting. METHODS: Guideline compliance was observed and measured with a prospective cohort at a tertiary academic paediatric medical-surgical intensive care unit. Adherence to 19 evidence-based clinical care guidelines was evaluated in 814 patients, and reasons for non-compliance were noted along with other associated outcomes. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Overall facility compliance was unexpectedly high at 77.8% over 4512 compliance events, involving 826 admissions. Compliance varied widely between guidelines. Guidelines with the highest compliance were stress ulcer prophylaxis (97.1%) and transfusion administration such as fresh frozen plasma (97.4%) and platelets (94.8%); guidelines with the lowest compliance were ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention (28.7%) and vitamin K administration (34.8%). There was no significant change in compliance over time with observation. Guidelines with binary decision branch points or single-page decision flow diagrams had a higher average compliance of 90.6%. Poor compliance was more often observed with poor perception of guideline trustworthiness and time limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Measuring guideline compliance, though onerous, allowed for evaluation of current clinical practices and identified actionable areas for institutional improvement.
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 | 0.028 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".