Reviewing systemic treatment regimens to reduce unintentional errors.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
51 Background: Use of systemic treatment computerized prescriber order entry (ST CPOE) and pre-printed orders (PPO) are proven error reduction measures. Such systems are not failsafe, as regimen development depends on cognitive input at critical points and is susceptible to human error. No known guidance currently exists in oncology to ensure regimens are of high quality and built as intended. The purpose of this initiative was to improve the quality of oncology regimens in Ontario. Methods: A review of 35 centres, representing 75 treatment centres in a hub-and-spoke model, was conducted for all active regimens (PPO and CPOE) to ensure they were built as intended, with respect to drugs and doses. Centres completed an exploratory survey to report any unintentional discrepancies and existing maintenance review processes. The survey collected centre demographics and contained descriptive questions to document details of the regimen review and maintenance processes. Results: The review yielded an 86% response rate (12 regional and 18 community cancer centres). Upwards of 700 regimens were reviewed by a multidisciplinary team at each participating centre. Unintentional discrepancies were reported by 7 of the 30 (23%) centres (range of 2 – 141 per centre); types and examples are presented in the Table. Only 2 of 30 centres (7%) had an established regimen maintenance process. Conclusions: The review identified unintentional discrepancies and, due to the potential for patient harm, corrective action has been taken. There is a need for guidance and adoption of a standardized approach in order to sustain a high-quality regimen build and review process across the province. Consensus-based recommendations for ST CPOE and PPO regimen development and maintenance have been developed. Identified discrepancies have been amended and maintenance review processes are now implemented to improve the quality and safety of systemic treatment delivery. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.040 | 0.167 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".