MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2936693169 · doi:10.2196/10832

Structure and Content of Drug Monitoring Advices Included in Discharge Letters at Interfaces of Care: Exploratory Analysis Preceding Database Development

2019· article· en· W2936693169 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Benedict Morath, Katharina Wien, Torsten Hoppe‐Tichy, Walter E. Haefeli, Hanna M. Seidling

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDatabaseContent analysisWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Inadequate drug monitoring of drug therapy after hospital discharge facilitates adverse drug events and preventable hospital readmissions. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the structure and content of drug monitoring advices of a representative sample of discharge letters as a basis for future electronic information systems. METHODS: On 2 days in November 2016, all discharge letters of 3 departments of a university hospital were extracted from the hospital information system. The frequency, content, and structure of drug monitoring advices in discharge letters were investigated and compared with the theoretical monitoring requirements expressed in the corresponding summaries of product characteristics (SmPC). The quality of the drug monitoring advices in the discharge letters was rated with the domains of an adapted systematic instructions for monitoring (SIM) score. RESULTS: In total, 154 discharge letters were analyzed containing 1180 brands (240 active pharmaceutical substances), of which 50.42% (595/1180) could theoretically be amended with a monitoring advice according to the SmPC. In reality, 40 discharge letters (26.0%, 40/154) contained a total of 66 monitoring advices for 57 brands (4.83%, 57/1180), comprising 18 different monitoring parameters. Drug monitoring advices only addressed mean 1.9 (SD 0.8) of the 7 domains of the SIM score and frequently did not address reasons for monitoring (86%, 57/66), the timing of monitoring, that is, the start (76%, 50/66), the frequency (94%, 63/66), the stop (95%, 63/66), and how to react (83%, 55/66). CONCLUSIONS: Drug monitoring advices were mostly absent in discharge letters and a gold standard for appropriate drug monitoring advices was lacking. Hence, more effort should be put in the development of tools that facilitate easy presentation of clinically meaningful drug monitoring advices at the point of care.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.109
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.109
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.302 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207