An Observational Study of the Accuracy and Completeness of an Anesthesia Information Management System
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anesthesia information management systems must often be tailored to fit the environment in which they are implemented. Extensive customization necessitates that systems be analyzed for both accuracy and completeness of documentation design to ensure that the final record is a true representation of practice. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of a recently installed system in the capture of key perianesthesia data. This study used an observational design and was conducted using a convenience sample of nurse anesthetists. Observational data of the nurse anesthetists'delivery of anesthesia care were collected using a touch-screen tablet computer utilizing an Access database customized observational data collection tool. A questionnaire was also administered to these nurse anesthetists to assess perceived accuracy, completeness, and satisfaction with the electronic documentation system. The major sources of data not documented in the system were anesthesiologist presence (20%) and placement of intravenous lines (20%). The major sources of inaccuracies in documentation were gas flow rates (45%), medication administration times (30%), and documentation of neuromuscular function testing (20%)-all of the sources of inaccuracies were related to the use of charting templates that were not altered to reflect the actual interventions performed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it