MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patient identification and tracking for chemotherapy delivery: Use of RFID or barcode technologies for automated self check-in.

2012· article· en· W2590504398 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew C. Cheung, Maureen Trudeau, Ben De Mendonca, Philomena Sousa, Simron Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTelecommunications and Broadcasting Technologies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInteractive kioskMedicineBarcodeChemotherapyIdentification (biology)Medical emergencyEmergency medicineInternal medicineWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

316 Background: The Odette Cancer Centre (OCC) is the sixth largest cancer institution in North America and manages over 24,000 chemotherapy patient visits/year. We initiated an automated kiosk system whereby patients can “actively” self-check-in to the chemotherapy unit as part of a quality initiative to improve one of the most complex processes in patient care. Methods: From January-May 2012, consecutive patients receiving >2 cycles of chemotherapy were randomly assigned to either radio-frequency identification (RFID) or barcode technologies to facilitate self check-in and time-in-motion studies. In parallel, the former manual check-in system (with OCC staff) continued. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with more 3 or more scheduled appointments who used the self-check system at least 2 times. Patient satisfaction was attained with baseline and post-study surveys. Results: The study accrued 81 patients (43 patients using RFID and 38 patients using barcodes). Mean age was 59 (20-81 years). Of 48 patients who completed baseline surveys, most had regular access to a computer (87.5%) and used the internet at least >1 hour/day (50%). However, 21% at baseline felt a person-to-person check-in was preferable to an automated option. With implementation of the study, 24 of 81 patients (29%) have used the kiosk only once. Of individuals with multiple scheduled appointments (at least 3), 50% assigned to the RFID group and 52.6% assigned to the barcode group used the kiosk at least 2 times (p=0.827; Fisher’s exact). In follow-up, 96.7% of patients agreed or strongly agreed that the kiosks were easy to use although only one-third (33.3%) of patients felt the new system improved the efficiency of care. Conclusions: An automated check-in process is feasible for a diverse population of patients receiving chemotherapy. Multiple uses of the kiosk technology suggest appropriate uptake and retention of the technology. Continued use of the system was not different between RFID and barcode technologies. Patient satisfaction was high despite the lack of improvement in efficiency. The next phase will incorporate patient tracking and real-time status updates to address these concerns.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicTelecommunications and Broadcasting TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207