“Hydrate While You Wait”: A QI Intervention to Apply Pre-procedural Oral Hydration in Burn Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the literature strongly supports oral consumption of clear fluids until 2 hours pre-operatively, patients are still routinely “nil per os” from midnight prior to their anticipated surgery, and only eat and drink again several hours after returning from the operating room.1–6 Those with burn injuries have higher nutritional requirements and require a greater number of procedures (surgeries and dressing changes under sedation) than other surgical patients.7 “Hydrate While You Wait” is a preoperative hydration pathway adapted for use at an American Burn Association-verified burn center, with the aim of reducing fasting times and patient discomfort (from hunger and thirst) in the pre-procedural period. Baseline data on the fasting time of 15 patients (including fasting time before each procedure and cumulative fasting time during admission) was collected over a 3-month period before the intervention in 2019, and further data was collected for 3 months immediately after the intervention, and again during a similar timeframe during 2021 and again in 2023.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".