ADDRESSING THE BARRIERS PREVENTING GUIDELINE ADHERENCE FOR BLOOD PRESSURE MEASUREMENT ON AN INPATIENT STROKE REHABILITATION WARD.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate BP measurement and subsequent management is contingent on strict BP measurement techniques . The Canadian Hypertension Education Program (CHEP) guideline has released one such protocol to standardize BP measurement. . Variations of 40mmHg or more has been observed with the variation of BP measurement technique . Objective:This project serves to determine the effects of a systematic and interdisciplinary collaborative approach to implement the CHEP BP measurement protocol in a stroke rehabilitation ward. Methods:Measurement of change:The usual practice of BP measurement was observed by trained researchers (baseline measurement).Barriers to BP measurement was addressed. Optional session by a nurse educator on BP measurement protocol. Hard copy of the BP measurement protocol was distributed in the staff room for convenient access. New sets of BP cuffs were purchased. One nurse during each day shift was moved earlier by 30 minutes.The same third party observed the nurses during morning BP measurements after the barriers has been addressed.Statistical analysis was performed by a statistician utilizing a repeated measures methodology.Results:The criterion, no exercise prior to BP measurement, had a statistically significant improvement (p=0.02). (see table 1)The balancing measure, total time spent on each BP measurements trended towards less time in the post versus the baseline. This trend is present even after accounting for outliers.By changing 1 nurseu2019s day shift schedule, patientu2019s BP were measured in their rooms rather than in a common area. Therefore, time for each BP measurement was assessed as a balancing measure . Subjectively, data collectors noted fewer overall distractions while patients were still in their rooms. Conclusion:We demonstrated a multi-faceted, collaborative, interdisciplinary approach to improve adherence to the CHEP BP protocol. In general, institutional effects had the least adherence at baseline and improved the most. Improvement in ensuring no physical activity prior to BP measurement reached statistical significance. These changes did not negatively affect the workflow of nurses
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 | 0.031 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".