MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036820194 · doi:10.1186/s12913-020-05427-8

The cirrhosis care Alberta (CCAB) protocol: implementing an evidence-based best practice order set for the management of liver cirrhosis - a hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation trial

2020· article· en· W3036820194 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Michelle Carbonneau, Ejemai Eboreime, Ashley Hyde, Denise Campbell‐Scherer, Peter Faris, Leah Gramlich, Ross T. Tsuyuki, Stephen E. Congly, Abdel Aziz Shaheen, Matthew D Sadler, Marilyn Zeman, Jude Spiers, Juan G. Abraldeṣ, Benjamin Sugars, Winnie Sia, Lee A. Green, dalia abdellatif, Jeffrey P. Schaefer, Vijeyakumar Selvarajah, Kaleb J. Marr, David B. Ryan, Yolande Westra, Neeja Bakshi, Jayant C. Varghese, Puneeta Tandon

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Health Services
FundersAlberta InnovatesAlberta Innovates - Health SolutionsAlberta Health Services
KeywordsMedicineHealth administrationEvidence-based practiceCirrhosisHealth careNursing researchProtocol (science)Health informaticsRandomized controlled trialBest practiceIntensive care medicineNursingPublic healthSurgeryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Liver cirrhosis is a leading cause of morbidity, premature mortality and acute care utilization in patients with digestive disease. In the province of Alberta, hospital readmission rates for patients with cirrhosis are estimated at 44% at 90 days. For hospitalized patients, multiple care gaps exist, the most notable stemming from i) the lack of a structured approach to best practice care for cirrhosis complications, ii) the lack of a structured approach to broader health needs and iii) suboptimal preparation for transition of care into the community. Cirrhosis Care Alberta (CCAB) is a 4-year multi-component pragmatic trial which aims to address these gaps. The proposed intervention is initiated at the time of hospitalization through implementation of a clinical information system embedded electronic order set for delivering evidence-based best practices under real-world conditions. The overarching objective of the CCAB trial is to demonstrate effectiveness and implementation feasibility for use of the order set in routine patient care within eight hospital sites in Alberta. METHODS: A mixed methods hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation design will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the order set intervention. The primary outcome is a reduction in 90-day cumulative length of stay. Implementation outcomes such as reach, adoption, fidelity and maintenance will also be evaluated alongside other patient and service outcomes such as readmission rates, quality of care and cost-effectiveness. This theory-based trial will be guided by Normalization Process Theory, Consolidated Framework on Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Reach-Effectiveness-Adoption-Implementation-Maintenance (RE-AIM) Framework. DISCUSSION: The CCAB project is unique in its breadth, both in the comprehensiveness of the multi-component order set and also for the breadth of its roll-out. Lessons learned will ultimately inform the feasibility and effectiveness of this approach in "real-world" conditions as well as adoption and adaptation of these best practices within the rest of Alberta, other provinces in Canada, and beyond. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04149223, November 4, 2019.

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.007

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 head0.665
GPT teacher head0.721
Teacher spread0.056 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations23
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services ResearchSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207