MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2740743795 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016070

PIM-Check: development of an international prescription-screening checklist designed by a Delphi method for internal medicine patients

2017· article· en· W2740743795 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Aude Desnoyer, Anne-Laure Blanc, Valérie Pourcher, Marie Besson, Caroline Fonzo‐Christe, Jules Desmeules, Arnaud Perrier, Pascal Bonnabry, Caroline Samer, Bertrand Guignard

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCentre Hospitalier Universitaire VaudoisHôpitaux Universitaires de GenèveMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineChecklistDelphi methodMedical prescriptionLikert scaleFamily medicineDelphiElectronic prescribingNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) occurs frequently and is a well-known risk factor for adverse drug events, but its incidence is underestimated in internal medicine. The objective of this study was to develop an electronic prescription-screening checklist to assist residents and young healthcare professionals in PIM detection. DESIGN: Five-step study involving selection of medical domains, literature review and 17 semistructured interviews, a two-round Delphi survey, a forward/back-translation process and an electronic tool development. SETTING: 22 University and general hospitals from Canada, Belgium, France and Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: 40 physicians and 25 clinical pharmacists were involved in the study.Agreement with the checklist statements and their usefulness for healthcare professional training were evaluated using two 6-point Likert scales (ranging from 0 to 5). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement and usefulness ratings were defined as: >65% of the experts giving the statement a rating of 4 or 5, during the first Delphi-round and >75% during the second. RESULTS: 166 statements were generated during the first two steps. Mean agreement and usefulness ratings were 4.32/5 (95% CI 4.28 to 4.36) and 4.11/5 (4.07 to 4.15), respectively, during the first Delphi-round and 4.53/5 (4.51 to 4.56) and 4.36/5 (4.33 to 4.39) during the second (p<0.001). The final checklist includes 160 statements in 17 medical domains and 56 pathologies. An algorithm of approximately 31 000 lines was developed including comorbidities and medications variables to create the electronic tool. CONCLUSION: PIM-Check is the first electronic prescription-screening checklist designed to detect PIM in internal medicine. It is intended to help young healthcare professionals in their clinical practice to detect PIM, to reduce medication errors and to improve patient safety.

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)0.076
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.102
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0760.102
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.341
GPT teacher head0.556
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations51
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207