MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413459129 · doi:10.26502/fjhs.336

Erie Shores HealthCare’s Experiences and Perceptions of the Critical Care Outreach Team

2025· article· en· W4413459129 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Angela Ciotoli, Nadia Pedri, Neelu Sehgal, Jaefer Mohamad, Nima Andre Malakoti-Negad, A. S. F. Gow, Tazmeen Yekinni, Munira Sultana

Bibliographic record

VenueFortune Journal of Health Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutreachHealth carePerceptionShoreNursingPsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critical Care Outreach Teams (CCOT) have been implemented globally to recognize early signs of patient deterioration and enhance critical care management. Erie Shores Healthcare (ESHC), a rural 72-bed hospital located in Leamington, Ontario, has faced challenges in managing an increasing volume of complex patients, particularly in identifying clinical deterioration in a timely manner. In response, the research team developed a daytime intensivist-led and nighttime RN-led CCOT program to improve early recognition and timely interventions. Data from a NoMAD questionnaire and a retrospective chart audit revealed a positive perception of CCOT among nursing staff, especially in preventing unnecessary ICU transfers. The intervention also significantly reduced the time from initial deterioration signs to key care points, with the nighttime RN-led program demonstrating greater efficiency. These encouraging results, coupled with a forthcoming quantitative study, indicate a strong need to extend CCOT services to 24/7 coverage at ESHC.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0100.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.421 · 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 designQualitative
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 venueFortune Journal of Health SciencesSame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207