Conformity in Prescription and Administration of Respiratory Distress Protocols in a Tertiary Care Hospital in the Province of Quebec: RELIEVE Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:Respiratory distress protocols (RDPs) are protocolized prescriptions comprised of 3 medications (a benzodiazepine, an opioid, and an anticholinergic) administered simultaneously as an emergency treatment for respiratory distress in palliative care patients in the province of Quebec, Canada. However, data on appropriate use that justifies the combination of all 3 components is scarce and based on individual pharmacodynamic properties along with expert consensus.Objectives:Our study aimed to evaluate the conformity and the effectiveness of RDPs prescribed and administered to hospitalized adult patients.Methods:This was a prospective and descriptive study conducted in a single center. Prescription and administration conformity were assessed based on predefined appropriateness criteria.Results:A total of 467 adult patients were prescribed a RDP, 175 administrations were documented, and 78 patients received at least 1 RDP. Prescription conformity was assessed on 1473 separate occasions over the trial period. Overall prescription conformity was found to be 37% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 33.6-40.4), and administration conformity was 37.7% (95% CI: 26.2-50.7). Low administration conformity was primarily explained by incorrect indications for RDP use. Seemingly important determinants of higher conformity were prescriber’s speciality in palliative care, use of preprinted orders, pharmacist involvement, and hospitalization in the palliative care unit.Conclusion:This study highlights important gaps in the use of RDPs in our institution. Health-care provider training appears necessary in order to ensure adequate conformity and allow for further evaluation of RDP effectiveness.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".