Mapping structure, process and outcomes in the removal of low-value care practices in Canadian intensive care units: protocol for a mixed-methods exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The challenge of implementing best evidence into clinical practice is a major problem in modern healthcare that can result in ineffective, inefficient and unsafe care. There is a growing body of literature which suggests that the removal or reduction of low-value care practices (ie, deadoption) is integral to the delivery of high-quality care and the sustainability of our healthcare system. However, currently very little is known about deadoption practices in Canada. We propose to map the current state of deadoption in Canadian intensive care units (ICUs). A key deliverable of this work will include development of an inventory of barriers, facilitators and potential implementation strategies for guiding the deadoption efforts. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use Canadian adult general systems ICUs as our laboratory of investigation and employ a two-phased sequential exploratory mixed-methods approach: (1) semi-structured interviews with critical care stakeholders to develop an understanding of the structure (ie, healthcare context), process (ie, actions and events in healthcare) and outcomes (ie, effects on health status, quality, knowledge or behaviour) of deadoption (phase I) and (2) surveys with a broader sample of critical care stakeholders to further identify important barriers and facilitators, as well as potential implementation strategies (phase II). Interview data will be analysed through qualitative content analysis and survey data will be analysed through quantitative analyses to identify top barriers and facilitators, as well as top rated strategies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained through the University of Calgary Research Ethics Board (REB 17-2153). Participants involved will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the final written reports to support accurate representation of the data. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and oral presentations with critical care stakeholders across Canada. Patient and family partners will receive an executive summary of the findings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.096 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".