The Use of a Mobile Application to Track Process Workflow in Perioperative Services
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses the data collection tool developed to investigate how patient flow is affected by the delivery of different types of care within Perioperative Services. To better understand the Perioperative Services processes, this study tracked staff members as they perform their activities. A challenging aspect of documenting the processes observed while tracking the Perioperative Services staff is to record the specific times and order in which the activities took place. The Perioperative Services is a fast-paced, dynamic environment where the staff members often perform multiple tasks that may also be interrupted, and each staff member may perform these tasks in their own sequence. To meet the needs of accurate data gathering, an iPhone/iPod Touch application was developed. It provides several advantages over the traditional paper/pencil method: (1) time stamps are instantaneous and consistent among the data collectors, (2) activities are entered via swipe-and-click capability, (3) multiple active tasks and interruptions can be tracked, and (4) collected data can be output to Microsoft Excel or Access for analysis. The "app" has proven to be useful in capturing data for our study. This technology can be customized and applied to similar settings at other hospitals.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it