MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982347188 · doi:10.29173/aar82

Assessment of an ICU-specific, electronic medical summary tool against traditional dictation to reduce communication gaps during ICU-to-inpatient transitions-in-care

2019· article· en· W2982347188 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Mungunzul Amarbayan, Liam Whalen-Browne, Rebecca Brundin‐Mather, Devika Kashyap, Khara M. Sauro, Andrea Soo, Jeanna Parsons Leigh, Thomas Stelfox

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Academic Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDictationMedicineIntensive care unitMedical emergencyQuality managementIntensive careEmergency medicineComputer scienceIntensive care medicineOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex


 Background: Transition from the intensive care unit (ICU) to an inpatient unit is a vulnerable period where communication gaps between medical teams may be associated with preventable adverse events. The transition-in-care (TIC) summary encompasses essential clinical information and facilitates seamless continuity of patient care between sending and receiving healthcare teams. Yet, current dictation practices often produce summaries of suboptimal quality that result in delayed or incomplete information. An electronic TIC summary tool, an alternative method to dictation, standardizes information, which may ensure more timely and complete communication to reduce information breakdowns and delays.
 Objective: In order to standardize information communicated during ICU-to-inpatient transitions, an ICU-specific, electronic TIC summary tool was implemented in four adult ICUs in the Calgary zone. It is hypothesized that implementation of the electronic summary will improve completeness and timelines of TIC summaries. 
 Methods: A multiple baseline study design was used to evaluate the implementation of the electronic TIC summary. ICUs continued dictation practices for a baseline period, until the electronic tool was implemented sequentially (in a randomized order) to each ICU and evaluated for six months following implementation. Post-implementation, providers had the option to dictate or use the electronic summary. The primary outcome was a binary measure of both completeness of four critical elements and availability of the TIC summary at ICU release.
 Results: Preliminary results were obtained for two months of baseline (n=48) and post-implementation (n=48) from one ICU. Post-implementation summaries contained four critical elements and were more frequently available at ICU transfer than pre-implementation dictations (73% versus 2%, p<0.001). More post implementation summaries contained completion of essential information (median 88% versus 63%, p<0.001) and had greater availability during transition (90% versus 73%, p=0.04) than pre-implementation dictations. With data collection scheduled to end in June 2019, we anticipate full study results to be available fall 2019.
 Conclusions: Preliminary results post-implementation suggest greater completion and faster availability for the receiving clinicians. It is anticipated that full study findings will add to the current literature on the effect of computerized tools for reducing communication gaps between ICU and inpatient units during transitions-in-care to ultimately improve patient safety.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.730

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.346 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Academic ReviewSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207