PP496 Topic: AS22–Quality and Safety/Errors/Data Management/Other: OXYGEN STEWARDSHIP IN THE PICU (OXY-STEP): A QUALITY IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims & Objectives: Background: We practice liberal oxygenation target however evidence suggests that conservative oxygenation target at best is more beneficial than liberal oxygenation and at worst, shows no harm1,2. Helmerhorst has shown feasibility and safety in implementing conservative oxygenation target in an ICU population3. Aim: To increase the adherence to SPO₂ target of 92% as lower limit for oxygen titration from 0% to 50% among non-cardiac, non-pulmonary hypertensive invasively ventilated children of all age groups (0 to 17 years) admitted between February to March 2024 Methods: Appropriate approval obtained from the department’s Quality improvement unit. Stakeholder meeting held to review the change idea and its implementation and arrived at a pragmatic oxygenation target based on audit, existing evidence while balancing competing factors (e.g. alarm fatigue). Next stage will include unit wide education and feedback until the aim is achieved Results: Compliance with ordering SPO2 target limits on the electronic health record Compliance of bedside staff with ordered SPO2 limits by titrating oxygen accordingly Conclusions: It is expected that the unit would become compliant with the units newly adopted oxygenation practice in keeping with the PALICC-2 20234 recommendations and in line with new evidence that shows no harm signal for conservative oxygenation target in ventilated children in the PICU. Impact Statement To reduce the potential harmful effects of iatrogenic hyperoxia in the unit Keywords: Quality Improvement, Oxygenation, SP02
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 | 0.043 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.080 | 0.035 |
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".