MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415052709 · doi:10.2478/ajon-2025-0011

EVD nursing management – exploring the differences in Australasia

2025· article· en· W4415052709 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Caroline Woon, Suji Kumaran, Kelly Edwards, Carly Rienecker, Diane Lear

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Journal of Neuroscience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMEDLINESession (web analytics)Patient safetyHealth careSample (material)Risk managementNurse educationNursing care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Infection is a significant risk for neurosurgical patients undergoing external ventricular drain (EVD) insertion. Nurses are well placed in the care of the patient with an EVD and in the role of infection prevention. Aim: This article aims to explore evidence-based practices and variations in nursing management of EVDs across Australasia, explored through questionnaires at the 2024 Australasian Neuroscience Nurses Association (ANNA) conference and compared with the literature. Methods: A written questionnaire containing 10 pre-determined questions were provided to participants who signed up for an EVD session at the ANNA 2024 conference workshops. Results from this survey along with data from conference discussions and existing research though a librarian, with thanks to the university of Otago the search were analysed to highlight effective prevention strategies and risk factors for external Ventriculostomy drain Associated Infections (VAIs). Results: A final sample of 9 neurosurgical nurses from Australasia and Canada completed the questionnaire although more nurses attended the workshop (n = 25). Combined with findings from the literature, the survey data identified several modifiable risk factors for VAIs, including cerebrospinal fluid sampling frequency, catheter duration, and site care. Effective practices—such as tunnelling EVDs, using antimicrobial-impregnated catheters, and implementing evidence-based maintenance protocols—were consistently highlighted. Ongoing education and adherence to best-practice guidelines were recognised as key strategies to reduce infection risk. Conclusion: Standard guidelines do not necessarily need extensive changes but should be regularly reviewed and adjusted to improve practices. Continuous education is crucial for reducing VAIs. Collaborative efforts among neuroscience nurses can significantly enhance patient care and outcomes. Focus areas for nurses could include wound dressing, cleaning and sampling technique.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.211

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 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 venueAustralasian Journal of NeuroscienceSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207