MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164158049 · doi:10.3233/shti210239

Implementation of a Computerized Provider Order Entry System in a Pediatric Hospital in Canada

2021· book-chapter· en· W3164158049 on OpenAlexaffabout
Man Qing Liang, Amélie Boudjellab, Hyukjin Kwon, Philippe Jouvet, Denis Lebel, Maxime Thibault, Aude Motulsky

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2021
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrder entryComputerized physician order entryMedicineMedical prescriptionMedical emergencyDosingClinical decision support systemPediatric hospitalVulnerability (computing)DeprescribingLegibilityPolypharmacyDecision support systemNursingPediatricsIntensive care medicineHealth careComputer scienceBusinessData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine (Montreal, Canada) is a pediatric academic tertiary hospital that has begun the implementation of a commercial computerized provider order entry system (CPOE) in October 2019. The objectives of this paper are 1) to estimate the impact of the CPOE system on medication errors, and 2) to identify vulnerability issues related to the configuration of the CPOE system's design. Using a pre-post implementation methodology measuring medication errors captured by clinical pharmacists revealed that the implementation of a CPOE has eliminated all prescription conformity (e.g., missing fields) and legibility errors. Pharmacists have continued to detect medication errors, especially inappropriate dosing instructions, and to intervene in similar clinical situations (medication reconciliation, deprescribing, adjusting orders). Additionally, the vulnerability analysis, based on typical clinical order test cases in an inpatient pediatric setting, highlighted the need to configure a clinical decision support system that can identify inappropriate dosing instructions for pediatric patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.355 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207