Improving the Endotracheal Tube Cuff Pressure Control Management Knowledge of Medical and Surgical Intensive Care Nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The knowledge level of nurses' endotracheal tube (ETT) cuff pressure control management is important for patient safety. The aim of this study is to assess how the knowledge level of intensive care (ICU) nurses is affected by ETT cuff pressure control training delivered using 2 alternative teaching techniques. The research was conducted with 88 medical and surgical nurses working in ICUs. The nurses in the groups were given education with presentation techniques in line with evidence-based guidelines on ETT cuff pressure control management. In addition to the nurses in the experimental group, 4 one-on-one follow-up visits were made using the demonstration technique. A statistically significant difference was found between the total scores of the knowledge level of ETT cuff pressure control after training in the experimental group and control group (P < .001). It was determined that presentation and demonstration teaching techniques increased the knowledge level of nurses on ETT cuff pressure control management, and the use of demonstration and one-to-one follow-up strategies were most effective.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".