MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2921988818 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz006.109

A110 CLINICAL DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR IBD FLARE MANAGEMENT AND CORTICOSTEROID ADMINISTRATION: PRELIMINARY RESULTS FROM AN INTERRUPED TIME SERIES

2019· article· en· W2921988818 on OpenAlexaffabout
Reed T. Sutton, Ellina Lytvyak, David Pincock, Daniel C. Baumgart, Daniel Sadowski, Richard N. Fedorak, Karen I. Kroeker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsRoyal Alexandra HospitalAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformaticsClinical decision support systemMedicineWorkflowHealth informaticsDecision support systemAmbulatoryPoint of careDiseaseMedical emergencyNursingComputer scienceInternal medicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Induction and maintenance of remission is a primary treatment goal for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Known gaps exist in adherence of practitioners to international guidelines for IBD care and, in other specialties, it has been shown to take up to 17 years for evidence to be translated into clinical practice. One problem; guidelines themselves are not actionable because they largely describe ‘what’ but not ‘how’. As a solution, our group developed a clinical decision support (CDS) tool for IBD in line with current guidelines. This was embedded into the Clinical Information System (CIS), EpicCare Ambulatory, as automated alerts, call-to-actions, and electronic order sets. Although similar tools have been built in other Epic systems and used for disease management, there is limited data on impact. We aim to assess the effect of our CDS tool on IBD specialists’ adherence to guidelines, as well as system satisfaction. A pragmatic, pre- and post-implementation design with a two-phase interrupted time-series. The interruption is activation of the CDS tool, accompanied by user training and a memo with instructions for use. Each data point will correspond to one month of individual patient visits, with a total of 18 months of data, 9 pre- and 9 post-interruption. A questionnaire including the Workflow Integration Survey (WIS) was administered to all users pre-interruption to collect demographic and baseline use data. The STARE-HI guidelines for health informatics evaluations were used in study design and assessment of appropriateness. The CDS tool was activated in October 2018. Ten IBD specialist users have completed the baseline questionnaire. Demographics; median of 7.0 (IQR: 6.0 to 7.0) years in practice, 5.0 (IQR: 4.0 to 6.0) years using any EMR, and 3.0 (IQR: 3.0 to 4.0) years using EpicCare. Users were asked to what extent they felt EpicCare was being fully utilized (Likert scale); 5 (50%) selected ‘neutral’, 5 (50%) selected ‘to a good extent’ (none selected ‘to the full extent’). Results from the WIS; mean of 4.0 (SD: 0.69) for navigation, 3.37 (SD: 0.93) for functionality, 3.50 (SD: 0.86) for ease of use, 3.30 (SD: 0.75) for workload. The Likert scores from individual WIS items are shown in Figure 1. At baseline, users are relatively satisfied with the different domains of the pre-existing system. About half of users feel that duplicate information is entered during patient encounters, and some feel that the system is not fully utilized. We will finish collecting adherence and application data and re-administer the WIS score again post-study. We hope to improve or at least do no harm to the current user experience, while improving guideline adherence and quality of care. CCC, CIHRUniversity of Alberta

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicElectronic Health Records Systems→French-language works237,207→