Development of a pediatric minimal sedation resource for emergency registered nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Minimal sedation is commonly implemented during the care of pediatric patients in the emergency department (ED). However, Newfoundland and Labrador Health Services lacks resources for emergency registered nurses regarding best practices with pediatric minimal sedation. Purpose: To develop a policy outlining proper procedures for administering minimal sedation in the pediatric emergency department setting. An additional aim was to develop a learning resource on the policy and fundamental topics of pediatric pain and anxiety management. Methods: Three main methods were utilized in the development of this pediatric minimal sedation resource: 1) a thorough literature review, 2) an environmental scan of existing available resources, 3) consultations with key stakeholders, such as pediatric emergency registered nurses and physicians. Results: The literature concluded that pediatric pain and anxiety associated with medical procedures is high, with many misconceptions existing among registered nurses regarding pediatric pain and anxiety. Researchers emphasized the importance of education for healthcare workers. The environmental scan supported these findings, with many resources existing which outline best practices for minimal sedation in the pediatric population. The consultations showed that81% of RNs and physicians preferred lecture/workshops for resource delivery, and 100% agreed that a pediatric minimal sedation policy and educational resources are essential. Conclusion: A pediatric minimal sedation policy and half-day educational resource were both developed to emphasize the importance of providing safe and effective minimal sedation to pediatric patients in the ED.
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 | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
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".