Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of a Surgical Neonatal Nursing Workload Tool to the Italian Context: The Italian Winnipeg Surgical Complex Assessment of Neonatal Nursing Needs Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complexity of care, adequate staffing levels, and workflow are key factors affecting nurses’ workloads. Clinical complexity classification and related staffing adjustment remain notable gaps in the current evidence limiting the capacity for optimal staffing practices. This study aimed to adapt and validate the WANNNT-SC to the Italian context to allow the assessment of newborns admitted to the NICUs. To evaluate the reliability of the tool among different profes-sionals, a correlation test was performed using Pearson’s correlation, which resulted in a strong correlation (r = 0.967, p = 0.01). In the test-retest phase, there was a significant correlation (r = 0.910 and p = 0.01). Using an analysis of variance, we found that the higher the I-WANNNT-SC score, the higher the predicted death rate (F = 13.05 and p < 0.001). The Italian Winnipeg Surgical Complex Assessment of Neonatal Nursing Needs Tool represents the first tool available for the Italian context that aims to measure the nursing workload in neonatal intensive care. It could allow adjustments in nursing staffing based on NICU activities and patient needs. This study was prospectively approved by the local Ethics Committee “Palermo 1” (Protocol CI-NICU-00).
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 | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".