MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997537281 · doi:10.1017/s0266462319001922

PP27 Additional Capabilities In Health Technology Assessment To Support Decision Making

2019· article· en· W2997537281 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brigitte Larocque, Marc Rhainds, Martin Coulombe, Alice Nourissat

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicQuality and Safety in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHealth careBusinessOperations managementEnvironmental healthMedical emergencyEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Decision-making regarding an open or a closed fluid waste management system (FWMS) in the planning of thirty operating rooms (ORs) of a new hospital at the CHU de Québec-Université-Laval was an opportunity to explore additional capabilities in health technology assessment (HTA) to support evidence-based planning. Methods Issues related to FWMSs in ORs were assessed from multiple data sources including: (i) systematic review in indexed databased and grey literature, (ii) waste management laws and regulations, (iii) local registry of reported incidents/accidents, (iv) occupational health and safety database, (v) electronic patient records (EPRs), (vi) field evaluation of two closed FWMSs, (vii) costs, and (viii) survey on FWMSs in ORs of other Quebec hospitals. Results Closed FWMSs in ORs could reduce health care professional exposure to blood and body fluids (BBF) according to two low-quality studies. Cases of occupational and patient exposure to BBF with closed FWMSs, some of which had severe issues, were reported to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Depending on the volume, discharge of BBF to the sanitary sewer may be authorized upon the approval of the competent municipal authorities. Compared to an open system, a closed FWMS has the potential to reduce manipulation of canisters during the cases because of large canister capacity (24 L). However, local data showed that BBF and irrigation fluid amounts in ORs are <2 L in 84 percent of cases and >2 L in a minority of surgeries, whereas a closed FWMS is associated with higher costs for BBF volumes <12 L. Other issues were observed during field evaluation (e.g., occupational noise). Closed FWMS implementation in other hospitals was very limited in the survey. Conclusions Available evidence does not support the widespread use of a closed FWMS. Use of mixed-methods in this particular HTA allowed to assist decision makers on the choice of an FWMS in the OR planning.

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)0.101
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.248
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1010.248
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0120.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0160.012
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.008

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.479 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health CareSame topicQuality and Safety in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207