MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063182147 · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-7-145

An evaluation of a model for the systematic documentation of hospital based health promotion activities: results from a multicentre study

2007· article· en· W2063182147 on OpenAlexaff
Hanne Tønnesen, Mette E Christensen, Oliver Groene, Ann O'Riordan, Fabrizio Simonelli, Lagle Suurorg, Denise Morris, P. Vibe, Susan Himel, Poul Erik Hansen

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSchool Health and Nursing Education
Canadian institutionsTrillium Health Centre
FundersIMK Almene FondBispebjerg Hospital
KeywordsMedicineDocumentationHealth administrationMedical recordHealth informaticsTest (biology)Promotion (chess)Coding (social sciences)Nursing researchPublic healthHealth services researchRehabilitationMedical emergencyFamily medicineNursingPhysical therapySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The first step of handling health promotion (HP) in Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs) is a systematic documentation and registration of the activities in the medical records. So far the possibility and tradition for systematic registration of clinical HP activities in the medical records and in patient administrative systems have been sparse. Therefore, the activities are mostly invisible in the registers of hospital services as well as in budgets and balances.A simple model has been described to structure the registration of the HP procedures performed by the clinical staff. The model consists of two parts; first part includes motivational counselling (7 codes) and the second part comprehends intervention, rehabilitation and after treatment (8 codes).The objective was to evaluate in an international study the usefulness, applicability and sufficiency of a simple model for the systematic registration of clinical HP procedures in day life. METHODS: The multi centre project was carried out in 19 departments/hospitals in 6 countries in a clinical setup. The study consisted of three parts in accordance with the objectives.A: Individual test. 20 consecutive medical records from each participating department/hospital were coded by the (coding) specialists at local department/hospital, exclusively (n = 5,529 of 5,700 possible tests in total).B: Common test. 14 standardized medical records were coded by all the specialists from 17 departments/hospitals, who returned 3,046 of 3,570 tests.C: Specialist evaluation. The specialists from the 19 departments/hospitals evaluated if the codes were useful, applicable and sufficient for the registration in their own department/hospital (239 of 285). RESULTS: A: In 97 to 100% of the local patient pathways the specialists were able to evaluate if there was documentation of HP activities in the medical record to be coded.B: Inter rater reliability on the use of the codes were 93% (57 to 100%) and 71% (31 to 100%), respectively.C: The majority of the study participants found the codes to be useful (71%), applicable (92%) and sufficient (92%). CONCLUSION: Systematic registration of HP activities is relevant in clinical day life and the suggested codes proved to be applicable for international use. HP is an essential part of the clinical pathway or the value chain. This model promises to improve the documentation and thereby facilitate analysis of records for evidence based medicine as well as cost and policy analyses.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.589
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.277
GPT teacher head0.606
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations33
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services ResearchSame topicSchool Health and Nursing EducationFrench-language works237,207