MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126576462 · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzv016

Technological aspects of hospital communication challenges: an observational study

2015· article· en· W2126576462 on OpenAlex
Ioana Popovici, Plinio Pelegrini Morita, Diane Doran, Stephen E. Lapinsky, Dante Morra, Ashleigh Shier, Robert Wu, Joseph A Cafazzo

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Quality in Health Care · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHospital Admissions and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalTrillium Health CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPagerObservational studyWorkflowPatient safetyEmergency departmentMedicineMedical emergencyCommunications systemChartNursingComputer scienceHealth careTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To gain insights into how technological communication tools impact effective communication among clinicians, which is critical for patient safety. DESIGN: This multi-site observational study analyzes inter-clinician communication and interaction with information technology, with a focus on the critical process of patient transfer from the Emergency Department to General Internal Medicine. SETTING: Mount Sinai Hospital, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and Toronto General Hospital. PARTICIPANTS: At least five ED and general internal medicine nurses and physicians directly involved in patient transfers were observed on separate occasions at each institution. INTERVENTIONS: N/A. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: N/A. RESULTS: The study provides insight into clinician workflow, evaluates current hospital communication systems and identifies key issues affecting communication: interruptions, issues with numeric pagers, lack of integrated communication tools, lack of awareness of consultation status, inefficiencies related to the paper chart, unintuitive user interfaces, mixed use of electronic and paper systems and lack of up-to-date contact information. It also identifies design trade-offs to be negotiated: synchronous communication vs. reducing interruptions, notification of patient status vs. reducing interruptions and speed vs. quality of handovers. CONCLUSIONS: The issues listed should be considered in the design of new technology for hospital communications.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.383
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.147 · 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