MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2396279803 · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1634343

Influenza Immunizations in the Elderly: A Continuous Quality Improvement Project

2000· article· en· W2396279803 on OpenAlexaffabout
M F Evans, Joseph D. Bloom, Ali Juma

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods of Information in Medicine · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuality managementQuality (philosophy)VirologyPediatricsOperations managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: As part of the continuous quality improvement program at The Toronto Hospital's Department of Family & Community Medicine (TTH-DFCM), it was considered necessary to examine the structures, processes and outcomes of influenza immunization for the elderly. OBJECTIVE: The study sought to (a) document the current influenza immunization process; (b) quantify influenza immunization rates for elderly patients during two consecutive immunization seasons (1996 and 1997), and compare these rates across physician teams, attending staff vs. residents, patient gender, and patient age groups; (c) compare influenza immunization rates with other centers; and (d) identify barriers and propose solutions to improve influenza immunization rates in the elderly. DESIGN: Evaluation Formative Research. SETTING: A computerized roster of 15,000 patients at The Toronto Hospital, Department of Family and Community Medicine, a University of Toronto academic teaching center. PARTICIPANTS: Active patients age 65 years and over. DEPENDENT VARIABLE: Influenza immunization. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: Physician Teams, Physician status, Patient gender, and Patient age group. RESULTS: Immunization rates of attendees increased from 75.4% to 78.7%; over 3% increase from 1996 to 1997. Major subgroups which benefited from increased immunization rates were patients in the Blue team, patients age 70-74 years, and female patients. CONCLUSION: This study presents a rigorous examination of the components of the influenza immunization program, and demonstrates improved immunization rates over a two-year period. Suggestions for future action have been identified. The study design can also serve as a model for future clinical quality improvement projects.

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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.384 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods of Information in MedicineSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207