Quality Improvement in Vascular Access Care Through the Use of Electronic Health Records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Hospitalized patients routinely require a form of vascular access, as do an increasing number of patients receiving care in community settings. Ensuring that the best quality of care is delivered to those requiring vascular access is a difficult task to achieve because multiple care providers initiate, assess, and access these devices. Electronic health records (EHRs) are a tool that may be used to aid clinicians in achieving best practices at the point of care and throughout an organization. Methods: We describe how EHR technology can be used to support quality improvement initiatives in vascular access practice and its related research and explore the importance and value of embedding vascular access requirements within EHR technology. Results: EHRs may be a valuable tool for supporting quality improvement efforts in the field of vascular access. Requirements of the clinical specialty such as clinical documentation, reminders and alerts, computerized provider order entry, electronic medication administration, and data extraction can be built into the existing functions of EHRs. Conclusions: Clinicians practicing in this specialty area should consider working with their clinical informatics and information technology departments to identify opportunities within their organizations to improve how the technology can be leveraged to support vascular access care.
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 | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".