Strategies for the quality assessment of the health care service providers in the treatment of Gastric Cancer in Colombia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While, at its inception in 1993, the health care system in Colombia was publicized as a paradigm to be copied across the developing world, numerous problems in its implementation have led to, what is now, an inefficient and crisis-ridden health system. Furthermore, as a result of inappropriate tools to measure the quality of the health service providers, several corruption scandals have arisen in the country. This study attempts to tackle this situation by proposing a strategy for the quality assessment of the health service providers (Entidades Promotoras de Salud, EPS) in the Colombian health system. In particular, as a case study, the quality of the treatment of stomach cancer is analyzed. METHODS: The study uses two complementary techniques to address the problem. These techniques are applied based on data of the treatment of gastric cancer collected on a nation-wide scale by the Colombian Ministry of Health and Welfare. First, Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and the Malmquist Index (MI) are used to establish the most efficient EPS's within the system, according to indicators such as opportunity indicators. Second, sequential clustering algorithm, related to process mining a field of data mining, is used to determine the medical history of all patients and to construct typical care pathways of the patients belonging to efficient and inefficient EPS's. Lastly, efforts are made to identify traits and differences between efficient and inefficient EPS's. RESULTS: Efficient and inefficient EPS were identified for the years 2010 and 2011. Additionally, a Malmquist Index was used to calculate the relative changes in the efficiency of the health providers. Using these efficiency rates, the typical treatment path of patients with gastric cancer was found for two EPSs: one efficient and another inefficient. Finally, the typical traits of the care pathways were established. CONCLUSIONS: Combining DEA and process mining proved to be a powerful approach understanding the problem and gaining valuable insight into the inner workings of the Colombian Health System, especially in terms of the treatment process performed by health care providers in critical illnesses such as cancer. However, no sufficiently compelling results were found to establish the contribution of such a combination to evaluate the quality in the delivery of health services.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".