MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072308974 · doi:10.1016/j.prro.2014.10.012

Safety Profile Assessment: An online tool to gauge safety-critical performance in radiation oncology

2014· article· en· W2072308974 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Dunscombe, Derek W. Brown, Holly Donaldson, Anne Greener, Michael O’Neill, Steven Sutlief, Michael Woodward, Ellen Yorke, Eric Ford

Bibliographic record

VenuePractical Radiation Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiation oncologyMedical physicsGauge (firearms)OncologyRadiation therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: It is challenging for the radiation oncology practitioner to manage and implement the plethora of recently generated recommendations on quality and safety improvement. The online Safety Profile Assessment (SPA) tool uses an easy-to-use question-and-answer format to assess safety/quality within a clinic, provide a way to benchmark against peers, and facilitate improvement. This report describes the design and development of the SPA and experience from the first year of use. METHODS: Performance indicators for the SPA were derived from 4 foundations: the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, a review of 7 recent authoritative documents specific to radiation oncology, a recent American Association of Physicists in Medicine report on incident learning, and the American College of Radiology-American Society for Radiation Oncology accreditation system as of 2011. After pilot testing, the free-access tool was launched through the American Association of Physicists in Medicine website (http://spa.aapm.org) in July 2013. Questionnaire data were collected to assess the experience of users. RESULTS: The SPA tool consists of 92 indicators designed to probe safety and quality. A clinic's performance is benchmarked against all other responses in the database, and aided by a downloadable log, quality/safety improvement strategies can be developed and tracked over time. At the time this paper was written, 279 individuals had registered, and 107 had completed the SPA. On average, the SPA required 1.3 hours to complete. The majority of respondents to the questionnaire (56%) completed the SPA with a multidisciplinary group of 4 people on average. Respondents noted that the SPA was easy or very easy to use (70%) and that they would definitely or very probably complete it again (63%). CONCLUSIONS: SPA provides a straightforward means of gauging a clinic's performance in key safety-critical areas and has been evaluated favorably by the first cohort of users. The tool has been qualified by the American Board of Radiology (ABR) as meeting the criteria for Practice Quality Improvement requirements of the ABR Maintenance of Certification Program.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.397 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations19
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePractical Radiation OncologySame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207