MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clinical Engineering Benchmarking

2008· article· en· W2316462633 on OpenAlexaff
Binseng Wang, Richard Eliason, Sonny Richards, Lawrence W. Hertzler, Steve Koenigshof

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicQuality and Safety in Healthcare
Canadian institutions123 Certification (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmarkingClinical engineeringCapital expenditureOperations managementBusinessOperating expenseQuality (philosophy)Acute carePerformance indicatorPerformance measurementAccountingEngineeringHealth careEconomicsMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Operational and financial clinical engineering (CE) data from 253 acute care hospitals were analyzed for indicators that are statistically valid and useful for measuring, monitoring, and improving performance. The sample is mostly composed of nonprofit public and religious hospitals and is evenly distributed among major and minor teaching hospitals and nonteaching institutions. Almost all CE departments manage all biomedical equipment and provide technology management support, but only some manage imaging, laboratory, nonmedical devices, and beds. Clinical engineering departments typically use 2.5 full-time-equivalent employees per 100 staffed beds or 1 full-time-equivalent employee per 4000 adjusted discharges. Administrative support is available only at large departments. Most of the CE budget is typically spent on service contracts, whereas approximately 20% is dedicated to internal labor. One scheduled maintenance and 1 repair are typically performed per capital device per year. Although the ratio of total CE expense and total equipment acquisition costs was confirmed to be a good indicator at around 4%, several other denominators also emerged as valid and, perhaps, even more widely available for comparisons, for example, staffed beds, adjusted discharges, and number of capital devices. Overall, CE budget is around 0.5% of the hospital's total operating budget. Because of uneven data quality and impossibility of validation, each indicator should not be used individually for precise benchmarking. On the other hand, when used together, multiple indicators provide not only valuable ballpark comparisons but also insights into deviations that warrant further investigation for potential uniqueness and/or improvement opportunities. Operational and financial clinical engineering (CE) data from 253 acute care hospitals were analyzed for indicators that are statistically valid and useful for measuring, monitoring, and improving performance. The sample is mostly composed of nonprofit public and religious hospitals and is evenly distributed among major and minor teaching hospitals and nonteaching institutions. Almost all CE departments manage all biomedical equipment and provide technology management support, but only some manage imaging, laboratory, nonmedical devices, and beds. Clinical engineering departments typically use 2.5 full-time-equivalent employees per 100 staffed beds or 1 full-time-equivalent employee per 4000 adjusted discharges. Administrative support is available only at large departments. Most of the CE budget is typically spent on service contracts, whereas approximately 20% is dedicated to internal labor. One scheduled maintenance and 1 repair are typically performed per capital device per year. Although the ratio of total CE expense and total equipment acquisition costs was confirmed to be a good indicator at around 4%, several other denominators also emerged as valid and, perhaps, even more widely available for comparisons, for example, staffed beds, adjusted discharges, and number of capital devices. Overall, CE budget is around 0.5% of the hospital's total operating budget. Because of uneven data quality and impossibility of validation, each indicator should not be used individually for precise benchmarking. On the other hand, when used together, multiple indicators provide not only valuable ballpark comparisons but also insights into deviations that warrant further investigation for potential uniqueness and/or improvement opportunities.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.021
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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 head0.354
GPT teacher head0.572
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations17
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical EngineeringSame topicQuality and Safety in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207