A Quality Improvement Study to Improve Inpatient Problem List Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The problem list is a meaningful use incentivized criterion, and >80% of patients should have 1 problem entered as structured data. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to use a series of interventions to increase the use of the problem list for inpatients to >80% as measured by at least 1 hospital problem at discharge. METHODS: This study was a quasi-experimental time series quality improvement trial. The primary outcome was 80% of medical and psychiatric inpatients with a problem added to the problem list before discharge. Control charts of percentage (p charts) of medical and psychiatric patients with an inpatient problem list at discharge were constructed with three-σ control limits. Control limits were revised after evidence of improvement. The charts were annotated with interventions, including increasing awareness, focused education, and timely feedback in the form of performance graphs e-mailed to providers. RESULTS: For medical inpatients, use rose from 31% to 97% at its peak in April 2011 and continues to maintain above the goal of 80%. In psychiatry, problem list use rose from 2% initially to an average of 72% after the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Significant gains were made with inpatient problem list usage by the medical and psychiatric teams. Our goal ascribed by meaningful use for >80% of inpatients to have a problem at discharge was met after initiation of our series of interventions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".