The medical radiation technologist model: a streamlined process for procedural sedations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Procedural sedations are a growing and routine form of sedation. Some of them may not require the presence of a nurse. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of the Medical Radiation Technologists (MRT) model, which forgo the presence of a Registered Nurse (RN), for procedural sedations in Computed Tomography biopsies. The setting was a teaching hospital that moved from an RN to an MRT model. We compared staff utilization, turnaround times and incident reports between pre and post implementation, over 19 months overall. RESULTS: No adverse events were observed under either model. Wait times were reduced by 25% from 131 to 98 min. Turnaround times were reduced by 2 min from 52 to 50 min. The joint cost of RN/MRIT was reduced by 37% per procedure, from $141 to $88. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the MRT model is more cost-effective without compromising quality of care. The MRT model is promising and should be extended to more facilities and other routine procedural sedations to save time and resources.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".