Using the model for improvement and microsystems analysis methodological framework to examine variation in the pressure transducer management process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The pressure transducer is a device used commonly in the critical care areas of a hospital in order to monitor the hemodynamic stability of a patient, in particular the critically ill patient. Because pressure transducers are commonly used, and because of the importance of the monitoring associated with the device, the ability to effectively set up and manage a pressure transducer is important. As such, the process should be examined for consistency, accuracy, and safety. Unfortunately, based upon an appraisal of the current research, there is no evidence in the literature detailing a standardized process for managing the pressure transducer set-up, nor is there a specific recommendation regarding the type of provider who should establish and manage these systems. Methods: The microsystem analysis and model for improvement (MFI) three guiding questions were used as the methodological framework for determining the extent and organizational risk associated with process variation in the pressure transducer management workflow. In critically ill adult intensive care patients, aged 18 and above, how does variation in the type of provider (Registered Nurse versus Anesthesia Lab Personnel) and workflow process (workflow variation, provided by process flow) for managing pressure transducers impact patient outcomes (rates of infection), process efficiency (measured by staff time for transducer set up and process cost for supplies/equipment), and direct cost of hemodynamic monitoring in a 12-month timeframe? Results: Process variation in the set-up and management of the pressure transducer throughout the healthcare organization was identified through process and pattern analysis. The results of the analysis highlighted operational inefficiencies and un-necessary workflow variations. Conclusions: The set-up and management of the pressure transducer process within a healthcare organization is a workflow that should be standardized and reviewed for operational and clinical outcomes. From a broader perspective, this project highlights the importance of analyzing workflow and the importance of decreasing workflow variation.
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 | 0.183 | 0.216 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".