Evaluation of Practices about Pediatrics Cardiac Catheterization among Nurses at District Head Quarter Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pediatric cardiac catheterization is a critical procedure that plays a vital role in diagnosing and treating congenital heart defects and other cardiac conditions in children. This procedure involves inserting a catheter into the heart chambers or vessels through a vein or artery. Nurses play multifaceted roles throughout the continuum of cardiac catheterization. Objective: To evaluate the practices of nurses about pediatrics cardiac catheterization. Methods: This study employed cross-sectional descriptive design at pediatric department of a District Head Quarter (DHQ) Hospital. Target population was registered nurses of age above 20 years and who had at least 6 months of practical experience with cardiac pediatric patients. Data were collected conveniently through observational checklist and analysis was done through SPSS Version 24.0. Results: Majority nurses were not encouraging bed rest to the pediatric patients nor keep affected extremity bend for 2-4 hours (80%) after catheterization. Moreover, they did not regularly check the vitals of the children and unable to monitor in every 15 minutes /hour or 30 minutes for next hour (81%). Nurses were unable to educate the pediatric parents for the removal of pressure dressing and nor assess the dressing site appropriately (92%). Conclusions: The present study findings suggested that majority nurses have poor practices before and after cardiac catheterization procedure while some have an average level of practices during the procedure. So, training programs should be arranged to enhance the practices of nurses about cardiac catheterization in pediatric population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".