MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DESCRIBING NURSING COMPLEXITY AND CLINICAL OUTCOMES IN A CARDIOVASCULAR SETTING: A SURVIVAL ANALYSIS

2025· article· en· W4410405141 on OpenAlexaff
Antonello Cocchieri, Gianfranco Damiani, Elena Isotta Cristofori, E Magliozzi, Valerio De Vita, Silvia Martinelli, A Nisticò, L Olivo, Domenico Pascucci, MC Nurchis, Manuele Cesare

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal Supplements · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicQuality and Safety in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity Hospital Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Nursing complexity has significant implications for patient outcomes, yet it remains an underexplored factor in cardiovascular care. This study investigates the levels of nursing complexity and their impact on clinical characteristics, survival outcomes, hospital readmissions, and emergency department (ED) visits in hospitalized cardiovascular patients. Methods A prospective cohort study was conducted at an Italian university hospital in a cardiovascular department from December 2020 to June 2022. Adult patients with a primary diagnosis of cardiovascular disease, identified using ICD–9–CM codes, were consecutively enrolled. Data included sociodemographic variables (e.g., age, gender), clinical characteristics (comorbidities, length of stay), and nursing–related variables (number of nursing diagnoses within the first 24 hours of admission and total interventions during hospitalization). Patients were followed for 12 months to assess all–cause mortality, hospital readmissions, and ED visits. Latent Class Analysis stratified patients into high and low–nursing complexity groups adjusted for the number of chronic conditions. Kaplan–Meier survival curves evaluated survival outcomes. Results Among 858 patients, 54.8% were classified as having high nursing complexity. These patients had a mean of 4.20 ± 2.46 nursing diagnoses and 5.89 ± 2.83 nursing interventions, significantly higher (p ‹ 0.001) than the low–complexity group, characterized by 1.13 ± 2.09 nursing diagnoses and 1.33 ± 3.27 nursing interventions. Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed worse survival in the high–complexity group during the 12–month follow–up, with 153 observed events vs. 113.5 expected events, compared to 27 observed events vs. 66.5 expected in the low–complexity group. The log–rank test confirmed a statistically significant group survival disparity (χ² = 43.1; p ‹ 0.001). The high–complexity group also had higher readmission rates (42.5% vs. 31.8%) but fewer ED visits (16.4% vs. 36.6%) compared to the low–complexity group. Conclusions High nursing complexity is associated to poorer survival outcomes and increased hospital readmissions, despite fewer ED visits. These findings underscore the importance of early identification and tailored care strategies for patients with high nursing complexity to enhance clinical outcomes in cardiovascular care.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.377
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.162 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal SupplementsSame topicQuality and Safety in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207