MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414752151 · doi:10.1186/s12909-025-07923-z

The mandatory educational module increases the effect of implementing the standard operating procedure and adherence to the lung-protective ventilation concept during anaesthesia

2025· article· en· W4414752151 on OpenAlexaff
Kalina Michal, Jan Beneš, S Smolen Josef, Vargová Patricia, Bubeníková Adéla

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVentilation (architecture)MEDLINEStandard operating procedureLung ventilationArtificial ventilation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND GOALS OF THE STUDY: Adherence to lung-protective ventilation leads to a lower incidence of perioperative pulmonary complications. However, adherence is reported to be only approximately 15% worldwide. Therefore, we conducted a prospective interventional clinical pre-post study to assess the impact of a standardized operating procedure (SOP) enhanced with a mandatory educational programme on adherence to intraoperative lung protective ventilation (IOLPV). MATERIALS AND METHODS: First, we assessed the current level of adherence to the IOLPV concept (Group A - before SOP). Thereafter, we implemented the SOP enhanced with a mandatory educational programme. When the program finished, our team assessed the new adherence level to the LPV concept (Group B - after SOP). We compared the number of cases that abided by each IOLPV recommendation and the number of cases that abided by the whole IOLPV bundle between the groups. RESULTS: A total of 164 patients were enrolled (Group A 82, Group B 82) in the study. The number of procedures with adherence to the whole IOLPV bundle was significantly greater in Group B (Group A, 4%; Group B, 24%; p < 0.001). Similarly, the total number of recruitment manoeuvres performed was significantly greater in Group B than in Group A (Group A 11, Group B 35, p < 0.001). The mean positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) was likewise significantly greater in Group B than in Group A (Group A, 6.6 ± 1.88 mbar; Group B, 7.8 ± 2.10 mbar; p < 0.001), leading to significantly more cases with an abiding level of PEEP, as recommended in Group B, than in Group A (Group A, 22; Group B, 49; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the number of cases that abided by the plateau, the driving pressure, the tidal volume, or the breathing frequency. CONCLUSIONS: The SOP enhanced with a mandatory educational program focused on IOLPV may be an effective tool for increasing adherence to IOLPV in daily practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study has been preregistered in registry clinicaltrials.gov and assigned the study registration number NCT05831683 with the brief title "Standard Operating Procedure as a Valuable Tool to Increase Adherence to Lung Protective Ventilation among Anaesthesiologists". Initial release on 3.4.2023 accessible on link https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05831683 .

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)0.002
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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 venueBMC Medical EducationSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207