MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2760934132 · doi:10.1093/pch/9.suppl_a.19aa

11 Teleneonatology: Evaluating its Integration into Clinical Care

2004· article· en· W2760934132 on OpenAlexaffabout
MM Seshia, Liz Loewen, Doris M. Sawatzky-Dickson, L Merrill

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHealthcare Systems and Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalanced scorecardLikert scaleMedicineService (business)NursingTelehealthConfidentialityFocus groupHealth careFamily medicineMedical emergencyMedical educationTelemedicinePsychologyProcess managementBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have developed a 24/7 clinical teleneonatology service between the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) Children's Hospital, Winnipeg, and a) the Resuscitation and Stabilization Room, Women's Hospital, Winnipeg and b) the Newborn Nursery, Thompson General Hospital, 763 km north of Winnipeg. This neonatal clinical support service is the first to be developed in Canada and was developed to improve access to specialized neonatal care. In order that this service could be integrated into existing work flow, the telehealth equipment was located within the NICU rather than remote from it. We evaluated this clinical service using the balanced scorecard, which provides a comprehensive framework which translates a service's strategic goals into a coherent set of performance measures that track more than one perspective. To evaluate the integration of a clinical telenonatology service using the balanced scorecard to examine the domains: system competency, responsiveness, work life and client/community focus. Indicators were developed to examine effectiveness, accessibility, equipment operability, confidentiality, partnership and community involvement. The tools used included a) log sheets of utilization data; b) a questionnaire administered to health professionals participating in the teleneonatology service; this questionnaire comprised 5 open-ended questions, rated on a Likert scale 1–5 (1-strongly disagree, 2-agree, 3-neutral, 4-agree and 5-strongly agree), with results expressed as medians (1st, 3rd quartile); c) anecdotal reports; and d) survey of patients. Two hundred and one questionnaires were administered to different neonatal health professionals: nurses, physicians, respiratory therapists and pharmacists. There was an overall 46% response rate. The service was considered effective as measured by acceptability of image quality, median 4 (3,4), accuracy of information exchange, median 4 (3,4), benefit to care, median 4 (3,5); accessible, with a 92% satisfactory establishment of the teleneonatology link; ease of operation of equipment, median 4 (4,4); maintenance of confidentiality, median 3 (3,4), and very satisfactory for partnership and community involvement (by anecdotal reporting). The balanced scorecard provided a useful framework for a comprehensive evaluation of the teleneonatology service and demonstrated that telehealth can be successfully integrated into the critical care environment of neonatal intensive care. It demonstrated that confidentiality issues need to be further addressed and that further consideration of the location of the equipment within the NICU must be made.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicHealthcare Systems and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207