MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 268: Using Lean Methodology to Reduce Variation in Care of Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients

2016· article· en· W2916541634 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew Kmetic, Guy Fradet, Ronnalea Hamman, Carol Laberge, C. Galte

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsFraser HealthInterior HealthProvincial Health Services Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReferralRevascularizationAcute coronary syndromeCardiogenic shockCardiac catheterizationEmergency medicineCath labHealth careMedical emergencyConventional PCICardiologyNursingMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Regional variation in the utilization of health services is a well-documented phenomenon in health care with numerous studies reporting substantial and unexplained variations in coronary revascularization. In the Canadian province of British Columbia (BC), five cardiac centers provide coronary revascularization services. In 2011 Cardiac Services BC (CSBC) undertook a study that identified substantial regional variation in coronary revascularization that could not be explained by patient characteristics or risk factors. Following this initial project, CSBC launched an initiative to help better understand the regional variations and possibly devise and implement strategies to reduce them. Methods: Using Lean methodology, we are mapping the key processes of care for ACS patients across BC (initially excluding emergent STEMI and cardiogenic shock) at each cardiac centre. The ACS patient journey will be mapped from admission to discharge through several key decision points that determine whether they will continue through to diagnostic catheterization and revascularization or to be medically managed alone. The key decision points are: 1. Decision to refer to diagnostic catheterization and subsequent transfer if necessary. 2. Decision to continue to a revascularization procedure (PCI or CABG) after diagnostic catheterization. The map will summarized these key decision points using multiple sources of data: 1. Flow and patient volumes into and out of each of these decision 2. Times between decision points and key care processes 3. Clinical influencers (ex: standard orders, best practice, established patterns of referral, and consultations) and non-clinical influencers (ex: resource capacity, transportation) that are considered at each decision point (process mapping and interview data). Discussion: BC is attempting to reduce unexplained variation in coronary revascularization using the Lean methodology to take a systematic approach to the analysis of the process of ACS care across the province. Involving physicians and point of care staff in the detailed mapping process has proven to be a significant step in engaging key stakeholders in the project by allowing input into the process of describing the factors affecting variation of practice at each site. The next step is to convene provincially to determine where to improve standardized practice in order to improve patient outcomes at key points along the value stream.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.378
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.122 · 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 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207