MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122867129 · doi:10.1186/s40697-015-0039-8

Development of a Hemodialysis Safety Checklist Using a Structured Panel Process

2015· article· en· W2122867129 on OpenAlexafffund
Samuel A. Silver, Alison Thomas, Andrea Rathe, Pamela Robinson, Ron Wald, Ziv Harel, Chaim M. Bell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersKidney Foundation of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Society of Nephrology
KeywordsChecklistMedicineHemodialysisPatient safetyDelphi methodDialysisMedical prescriptionMedical emergencyEmergency medicineNursingSurgeryHealth carePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization created a Surgical Safety Checklist with a pause or "time out" to help reduce preventable adverse events and improve communication. A similar tool might improve patient safety and reduce treatment-associated morbidity in the hemodialysis unit. OBJECTIVE: To develop a Hemodialysis Safety Checklist (Hemo Pause) for daily use by nurses and patients. DESIGN: A modified Delphi consensus technique based on the RAND method was used to evaluate and revise the checklist. SETTING: University-affiliated in-center hemodialysis unit. PARTICIPANTS: A multidisciplinary team of physicians, nurses, and administrators developed the initial version of the Hemo Pause Checklist. The evaluation team consisted of 20 registered hemodialysis nurses. MEASUREMENTS: The top 5 hemodialysis safety measures according to hemodialysis nurses. A 75% agreement threshold was required for consensus. METHODS: The structured panel process was iterative, consisting of a literature review to identify safety parameters, individual rating of each parameter by the panel of hemodialysis nurses, an in-person consensus meeting wherein the panel refined the parameters, and a final anonymous survey that assessed panel consensus. RESULTS: The literature review produced 31 patient safety parameters. Individual review by panelists reduced the list to 25 parameters, followed by further reduction to 19 at the in-person consensus meeting. The final round of scoring yielded the following top 5 safety measures: 1) confirmation of patient identity, 2) measurement of pre-dialysis weight, 3) recognition and transcription of new medical orders, 4) confirmation of dialysate composition based on prescription, and 5) measurement of pre-dialysis blood pressure. Revision using human factors principles incorporated the 19 patient safety parameters with greater than or equal to 75% consensus into a final checklist of 17-items. LIMITATIONS: The literature review was not systematic. This was a single-center study, and the panel lacked patient and family representation. CONCLUSIONS: A novel 17-item Hemodialysis Safety Checklist (Hemo Pause) for use by nurses and patients has been developed to standardize the hemodialysis procedure. Further quality improvement efforts are underway to explore the feasibility of using this checklist to reduce adverse events and strengthen the safety culture in the hemodialysis unit.

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)0.222
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.246
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2220.246
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0120.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0060.009
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.271 · 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.

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

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and DiseaseSame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207