MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406328853 · doi:10.62754/joe.v3i8.5815

A Comprehensive Review on the Synergy between Emergency Services, Nurses, Assistant Nurses, and Laboratory Teams in Critical Care

2024· review· en· W4406328853 on OpenAlexaff
Sultan Mohammed F Alsharari, Hani Subaih B Al-Sharari, Doaa Ali Awad, Nedal Lahii Alsharari, Yousef Salamah Alsharari, Saeed S. Al-Yami, Ali Abdulrhman A Sofyani, Majdi Mohammed I Khawaji, Abdullah Ali M Khiswi, Rayan Khalid A Alzahrani, M. Alanazi, Yazeed Aqeel R Alrehaili, Naif Hadi Y Musarrihi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecohumanism · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsInnovation Cluster (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowWorkloadTriageStandardizationInformation exchangeWork (physics)Information sharingKnowledge managementInformation technologyNursingProcess managementMedicineMedical emergencyBusinessComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emergency services as well as the nurses, assistant nurses and the laboratory teams, must work hand in hand when providing critical care. In critically-acclaimed cases where time is of the essence, interdisciplinary coordination enhances the diagnosis, delivery of treatments and patient outcomes. The emergency patient is kept safe, rapidly moved, and treated by triage and early care, followed by ward nurses and assistant nurses who can perform continuous observations, supported by laboratory personnel who provide essential information needed for treatment. However, collaboration is often faced with barriers such as communication breakdown, organizational structure, and lack of standard use of technology. Works released between 2010 and 2020 indicate that standardization of information transfer, such as the SBAR model, and embracing clinical information technology, such as EHR, improves team coordination, minimizes adverse events, and shortens reaction time. Also, interdisciplinary training is another important practice that helps ensure that different departments have enough trust for one another, enabling better integration. Since the changes in attitudes towards interdisciplinary collaboration, new technologies such as data sharing and diagnostics have enhanced the flow of information between teams. However, the patchy implementation throughout facilities has hindered this. Other areas that may need to be tackled to improve collaboration and support these initiatives include workload disparities, the number of staff, and other resources available to research and analyse different topics. This review systematically presents data regarding the collaboration of these teams. It highlights the implementation of common processes and information exchange in Main Communication Protocols and effective workflow for coordinating the care for critically ill patients as pillars for better outcomes in patient care in critical care settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.174
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EcohumanismSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207