Assessment of the Quality Management System for Clinical Nutrition in Jiangsu: Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An electronic system that automatically collects medical information can realize timely monitoring of patient health and improve the effectiveness and accuracy of medical treatment. To our knowledge, the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical service quality assessment has been minimally evaluated, especially for clinical nutrition departments in China. From the perspective of medical ethics, patient safety comes before any other factors within health science, and this responsibility belongs to the quality management system (QMS) within medical institutions. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the QMS for clinical nutrition in Jiangsu, monitor its performance in quality assessment and human resource management from a nutrition aspect, and investigate the application and development of AI in medical quality control. METHODS: The participants for this study were the staff of 70 clinical nutrition departments of the tertiary hospitals in Jiangsu Province, China. These departments are all members of the Quality Management System of Clinical Nutrition in Jiangsu (QMSNJ). An online survey was conducted on all 341 employees within all clinical nutrition departments based on the staff information from the surveyed medical institutions. The questionnaire contains five sections, and the data analysis and AI evaluation were focused on human resource information. RESULTS: =-0.42; P=.02) both show the advancements of the QMSNJ. CONCLUSIONS: As the first innovation of an online platform for quality management in Jiangsu, the Jiangsu Province Clinical Nutrition Management Platform was successfully implemented as a QMS for this study. This multidimensional electronic system can help the QMSNJ and clinical nutrition departments achieve quality assessment from various aspects so as to realize the continuous improvement of clinical nutrition. The use of an online platform and AI technology for quality assessment is worth recommending and promoting in the future.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".