Evaluation of deficiencies in current discharge summaries for dialysis patients in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deficits in the transfer of information between inpatient and outpatient physicians are common and pose a patient safety risk. This is particularly the case for vulnerable populations such as patients with end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis. These patients have unique and complex health care needs that may not be effectively communicated on standard discharge summaries, which may result in potential medical errors and adverse events. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate Canadian dialysis center directors' perceptions of deficiencies in the content and quality of hospital discharge summaries for dialysis patients. METHODS: A web-based, cross-sectional survey of Canadian dialysis center directors was performed between September and November 2010. The survey consisted of three parts. The first part was designed to assess dialysis center directors' attitudes on the quality of discharge summaries they receive. The second part was designed to elicit respondents' preferences for discharge summary content, and the third part consisted of questions regarding demographic and practice information. RESULTS: Of 79 dialysis center directors, 21 (27%) completed the survey. Sixty-two percent felt that current discharge summaries inadequately communicate dialysis-specific information. Receipt of antibiotics for line sepsis or peritonitis, modifications to vascular access, and changes in target weight/dialysis prescription were rated as essential dialysis-specific information to include in discharge summaries by respondents. CONCLUSION: Over three quarters of dialysis center directors find the current practice of transferring discharge information for hospitalized dialysis patients grossly inadequate. The inclusion of dialysis-specific information may improve the quality of discharge summaries for dialysis patients.
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 | 0.006 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".