Validation of an Infarction Code Care Checklist and Determination of its Relationship With Other Patient Safety Indicators: Protocol for a Prospective Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: In the care of time-dependent illnesses, facilitating care and systematizing actions with a checklist provides security to health professionals and reduces errors, thereby increasing patient safety. However, despite the widespread use of checklists in other clinical contexts, no studies have yet validated a checklist specifically for infarction code care. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to validate the checklist and determine its relationship with the rest of the patient safety indicators in the primary care teams of the Catalan Health Institute of Central Catalonia. METHODS: This is a prospective study for the validation of a checklist for infarction code care. In this study, 2 clinical scenarios of varying difficulty are defined, and the correct answers are established in each case according to the gold standard guidelines. During the first 3 months of the ongoing year, we held an annual training meeting where infarction code referents from various primary care teams gathered to review the new guidelines and outline the training strategy for the next year. These referents conducted annual training sessions for their respective teams before Easter, during which they explained the new guidelines. On the same day as the training, the 2 clinical scenarios were completed using the online version of the checklist for the first time for all participants. The checklist was sent in digital format to all health professionals who responded the first time, and then a reminder was sent to respond a second time at 30, 45, and 90 days to obtain the maximum number of second responses, as the checklist should be completed twice to assess internal reliability and temporal robustness. The number of hits was compared with respect to the gold standard for both the first and the second response. The results obtained from the responses and accuracies, when compared with the gold standards, were evaluated against other available patient safety indicators in the region. RESULTS: Between January 2023 and May 2023, we obtained 615 responses to the online version of the checklist. We conducted analyses to assess both internal consistency and temporal robustness of the responses and have also structured the framework for comparing these results with other patient safety indicators available in the region. Data analysis is currently underway, and we expect to publish the results in early 2026. CONCLUSIONS: If the checklist demonstrates strong internal consistency and temporal robustness and shows a meaningful relationship with patient safety indicators, it could be implemented across primary care centers using the infarction code. This would support safer, more standardized care in time-sensitive clinical situations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: IDIAP Jordi Gol 4R22/343; https://idiapjgol.org/grup-recerca/prosaaru/projectes/. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/66584.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,065 | 0,064 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,034 | 0,011 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».