MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403739735 · doi:10.1177/08850666241291524

<i>Extubation Advisor</i> : Implementation and Evaluation of A Novel Extubation Clinical Decision Support Tool

2024· article· en· W4403739735 on OpenAlexaff
Brett N. Hryciw, Natasha Hudek, Christophe L. Herry, Nathan Scales, Emma Lee, Aimee Sarti, Karen E. A. Burns, Andrew Seely

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intensive Care Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLikert scaleUsabilityIntensive care unitRespiratory therapistEmergency medicineMedical emergencyNursingIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Extubation Advisor (EA) is a novel software tool that generates a synoptic report for each Spontaneous Breathing Trial (SBT) conducted to inform extubation decision-making. Objectives: To assess bedside EA implementation, perceptions of utility, and identify barriers and facilitators of use. Design, Setting and Participants: We conducted a phase I mixed-methods interventional study in three mixed intensive care unit (ICUs) in two academic hospitals. We interviewed critical care physicians (MDs) and respiratory therapists (RTs) regarding user-centered design principles and usability. Analysis: We evaluated our ability to consent participants (feasibility threshold 50%), capture complete data (threshold 90%), generate and review EA reports in real-time (thresholds 75% and 80%, respectively), and MD perception of tool usefulness (6-point Likert scale). We analyzed interview transcripts using inductive coding to identify facilitators and barriers to EA implementation and perceived benefit of tool use. Results: We enrolled 31 patients who underwent 70 SBTs. Although consent rates [31/31 (100%], complete data capture [68/68 (100%)], and EA report generation [68/70 (97.1%)] exceeded feasibility thresholds, reports were reviewed by MDs for [55/70 (78.6%)] SBTs. Mean MD usefulness score was 4.0/6. Based on feedback obtained from 36 interviews (15 MDs, 21 RTs), we revised the EA report twice and identified facilitators (ability to track patient progress, enhance extubation decision-making, and provide support in resource-limited settings) and barriers (resource constraints, need for education) to tool implementation. Half of respondents (9 MDs, 9 RTs; combined 50%) perceived definite or potential benefit to EA tool use. Conclusion: This is the first study of a waveform-based variability-derived, predictive clinical decision support tool evaluated in adult ICUs. Our findings support the feasibility of integrating the EA tool into bedside workflow. Clinical trials are needed to assess the utility of the EA tool in practice and its impact on extubation decision-making and outcomes.Trial RegistrationNCT04708509.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.921

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.412 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intensive Care MedicineSame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207