MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002103376 · doi:10.5430/jha.v2n1p28

Development of a real-time general medicine 30-day readmissions notification system

2012· article· en· W2002103376 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jonathan Bae, Thomas Owens, Jeffrey Ferranti, William M. Gilbert, Ilona Stashko, Elizabeth A. Willis, Tanya Barros, Monica M. Horvath

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospital Administration · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDuke Clinical Research Institute
KeywordsEmergency departmentMedicinePsychological interventionPresentation (obstetrics)Medical emergencyQuality managementEmergency medicineMeaningful useHealth careQuality (philosophy)Hospital readmissionHealthcare systemOperations managementNursingManagement system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hospital readmissions present a costly problem for healthcare systems. Engaging care providers in reviewing readmissions may reveal opportunities for reducing readmissions and improving quality. We developed a real-time alerting method that e-mails providers when a discharged patient returns for care (emergency department [ED] or hospital admission) within 30 days. We analyzed the content of alerts to consider frequency of presentation and demographic characteristics of readmitted patients. From 3/15/2011 to 8/31/2011, 1544 alerts (943 ED returns; 601 inpatient readmissions) were generated, representing 621 unique patients (average return time: 12.8±8.5 days). Forty-eight faculty received alerts; 88.8% of alerts were sent to the correct discharging provider. Real-time alerting allows providers to re-engage with readmitted patients and offers a means for evaluating performance. Such systems may also elucidate reasons for readmission by detailing practice patterns and populations at risk for readmission as well as help to design targeted interventions to reduce hospital returns.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.296
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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hospital AdministrationSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207