Implementation of the Canadian Paediatric Society's hyperbilirubinemia guidelines: A survey of Ontario hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In 2007, the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) published guidelines aimed at preventing severe hyperbilirubinemia. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether hospitals had implemented these guidelines; to investigate how guideline-recommended care is organized; and to understand the factors influencing guideline implementation. METHODS: The present study was an online survey conducted from December 2011 to May 2012 of all Ontario hospitals offering maternal-newborn services. RESULTS: A total of 97 of 100 eligible hospitals responded. Seventy-seven of the 97 (79%) respondents reported having implemented universal neonatal bilirubin screening. Among these hospitals, hospital-based postdischarge follow-up was reported more frequently than follow-up at community-based locations: hospital laboratory (n=40 [52%]), mother-baby care unit (n=32 [42%]), outpatient clinic (n=25 [33%]), primary care provider in community (n=19 [25%]) and community laboratory (n=8 [10%]). The CPS guidelines were the most frequently reported factor influencing implementation (n=74 [96%]). DISCUSSION: The survey provides valuable insight into the impact of a complex guideline in Canada's largest province. There was heterogeneity in how hospitals organized services, but there was a notable trend toward hospital-based postdischarge care. The shift to hospital-based care runs counter to current health policy directions and highlights the lack of integration among health care sectors. CONCLUSION: The majority of Ontario hospitals implemented universal bilirubin screening following the release of the CPS guidelines. Further analysis is needed to determine the impact that the guidelines and the differences in implementation have had on clinical outcomes and the utilization of health services.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".