Improving thiamine prescribing at an academic hospital network using the computerized provider order entry system: a cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background:</h3> Oral thiamine therapy is frequently prescribed to patients at risk for thiamine deficiency despite recommendations emphasizing the need for high doses of parenteral thiamine to reverse brain thiamine deficits. We evaluated the effect of changes to the computerized provider order entry system on the proportion of prescriptions for parenteral thiamine treatment (primary outcome) and dosages prescribed (secondary outcome) within our academic hospital network. <h3>Methods:</h3> We obtained data from the pharmacy information system recording thiamine prescribed to inpatients at University Health Network hospitals (Toronto, Ontario) before (Jan. 1, 2010, to Dec. 31, 2011) and after (Nov. 21, 2013, to Apr. 30, 2017) changes to the computerized provider order entry system promoting the use of higher dosages (≥ 200 mg) of parenterally administered thiamine. Patients receiving thiamine as part of total parenteral nutrition were excluded from analyses, as thiamine prescribing was automated and unlikely to be affected by the intervention. <h3>Results:</h3> A total of 6105 thiamine prescriptions were written for 2907 patients before the intervention and 12 787 thiamine prescriptions for 8032 patients after the intervention. The proportion of prescriptions for parenteral treatment increased from 55.5% (3386/6105) to 92.5% (11 829/12 787) after the intervention (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Increases in prescribing of parenteral thiamine treatment were sustained or enhanced across the 3.4-year observation period and were realized across all hospital services. Prescriptions for higher dosages of thiamine increased from 1.1% (65/6105) to 61.4% (7845/12 787) after the intervention (<i>p</i> < 0.001). <h3>Interpretation:</h3> Changes to the computerized provider order entry system were associated with sustained increases in the proportion of prescriptions for high-dose parenteral thiamine therapy. Similar approaches may be leveraged to align prescriber behaviour with well-accepted practice parameters in other areas of medicine.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".