The Use of Discrete-Event Simulation Modeling to Compare Handwritten and Electronic Prescribing Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) is expected to bring many benefits to Canadian healthcare, such as a reduction in errors and adverse drug reactions. As there currently is no functioning e-prescribing system in Canada that is completely electronic, we are unable to evaluate the performance of a live system. An alternative approach is to use simulation modeling for evaluation. We developed two discrete-event simulation models, one of the current handwritten prescribing system and one of a proposed e-prescribing system, to compare the performance of these two systems. We were able to compare the number of processes in each model, workflow efficiency, and the distribution of patients or prescriptions. Although we were able to compare these models to each other, using discrete-event simulation software was challenging. We were limited in the number of variables we could measure. We discovered non-linear processes and feedback loops in both models that could not be adequately represented using discrete-event simulation software. Finally, interactions between entities in both models could not be modeled using this type of software. We have come to the conclusion that a more appropriate approach to modeling both the handwritten and electronic prescribing systems would be to use a complex adaptive systems approach using agent-based modeling or systems-based modeling.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".