MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Integrating A3 Reports and the House of Quality: Improving Workflow in the Recovery Room Using Information Technology

2009· article· en· W119390327 on OpenAlexaff
Mu-Hsing Kuo, Elizabeth M. Borycki, André Kushniruk, Te-Shu Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality Function Deployment in Product Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowPacuWorkflow technologyComputer scienceQuality (philosophy)Workflow management systemProcess (computing)Process managementBusinessDatabaseMedicineSurgeryOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we provide a methodology for integrating the House of Quality (HOQ), a process tool, with Toyota A3 reports to effectively identify the priorities and root causes of poor efficiency in a Post Anesthesia Care Unit's (PACU) workflow. The A3 report allowed us to identify the workflow waste, and the HOQ helped us to identify and prioritize the critical root causes of poor workflow that could be improved by technology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicQuality Function Deployment in Product DesignFrench-language works237,207