MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2403085420 · doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-709-3-37

Critical Care Providers Refer to Information Tools Less During Communication Tasks After a Critical Care Clinical Information System Introduction

2011· article· en· W2403085420 on OpenAlexafffund
Mark Ballermann, Nicola Shaw, Damon C. Mayes, R. T. Noel Gibney

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDocumentationObservational studyIntensive careCritical care nursingMedicineNursingMedical emergencyComputer scienceIntensive care medicineHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electronic documentation methods may assist critical care providers with information management tasks in Intensive Care Units (ICUs). We conducted a quasi-experimental observational study to investigate patterns of information tool use by ICU physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists during verbal communication tasks. Critical care providers used tools less at 3 months after the CCIS introduction. At 12 months, care providers referred to paper and permanent records, especially during shift changes. The results suggest potential areas of improvement for clinical information systems in assisting critical care providers in ensuring informational continuity around their patients.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207