MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Point of Care Use of a Personal Digital Assistant for Patient Consultation Management

2003· article· en· W2082802090 on OpenAlexaff
Laine Bosma, Robert M. Balen, Erin Davidson, Peter J. Jewesson

Bibliographic record

VenueCIN Computers Informatics Nursing · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalVancouver Hospital and Health Sciences CentreCanadian Nurses Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsService (business)Point of careTable (database)Health careData collectionMedicineSoftwareNursingComputer scienceDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development and integration of a personal digital assistant (PDA)-based point-of-care database into an intravenous resource nurse (IVRN) consultation service for the purposes of consultation management and service characterization are described. The IVRN team provides a consultation service 7 days a week in this 1000-bed tertiary adult care teaching hospital. No simple, reliable method for documenting IVRN patient care activity and facilitating IVRN-initiated patient follow-up evaluation was available. Implementation of a PDA database with exportability of data to statistical analysis software was undertaken in July 2001. A Palm IIIXE PDA was purchased and a three-table, 13-field database was developed using HanDBase software. During the 7-month period of data collection, the IVRN team recorded 4868 consultations for 40 patient care areas. Full analysis of service characteristics was conducted using SPSS 10.0 software. Team members adopted the new technology with few problems, and the authors now can efficiently track and analyze the services provided by their IVRN team.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.006

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCIN Computers Informatics NursingSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207