MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201425267 · doi:10.2196/30238

The Communicating Narrative Concerns Entered by Registered Nurses (CONCERN) Clinical Decision Support Early Warning System: Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Pragmatic Clinical Trial

2021· article· en· W3201425267 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sarah Collins Rossetti, Patricia C. Dykes, Christopher Knaplund, Min‐Jeoung Kang, Kumiko O. Schnock, José P. Garcia, Li-Heng Fu, Frank Chang, Tien Thai, Matthew Fred, Tom Z Korach, Li Zhou, Jeffrey G. Klann, David J. Albers, Jessica Schwartz, Graham Lowenthal, Haomiao Jia, Fang Liu, Kenrick Cato

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Nursing ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsEarly warning scoreRandomized controlled trialMedicineUsabilityPsychological interventionCluster randomised controlled trialMedical emergencyDocumentationWarning systemProtocol (science)Clinical decision support systemClinical trialHealth careCluster (spacecraft)Decision support systemNursingData miningComputer scienceAlternative medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Every year, hundreds of thousands of inpatients die from cardiac arrest and sepsis, which could be avoided if those patients' risk for deterioration were detected and timely interventions were initiated. Thus, a system is needed to convert real-time, raw patient data into consumable information that clinicians can utilize to identify patients at risk of deterioration and thus prevent mortality and improve patient health outcomes. The overarching goal of the COmmunicating Narrative Concerns Entered by Registered Nurses (CONCERN) study is to implement and evaluate an early warning score system that provides clinical decision support (CDS) in electronic health record systems. With a combination of machine learning and natural language processing, the CONCERN CDS utilizes nursing documentation patterns as indicators of nurses' increased surveillance to predict when patients are at the risk of clinical deterioration. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this cluster randomized pragmatic clinical trial is to evaluate the effectiveness and usability of the CONCERN CDS system at 2 different study sites. The specific aim is to decrease hospitalized patients' negative health outcomes (in-hospital mortality, length of stay, cardiac arrest, unanticipated intensive care unit transfers, and 30-day hospital readmission rates). METHODS: A multiple time-series intervention consisting of 3 phases will be performed through a 1-year period during the cluster randomized pragmatic clinical trial. Phase 1 evaluates the adoption of our algorithm through pilot and trial testing, phase 2 activates optimized versions of the CONCERN CDS based on experience from phase 1, and phase 3 will be a silent release mode where no CDS is viewable to the end user. The intervention deals with a series of processes from system release to evaluation. The system release includes CONCERN CDS implementation and user training. Then, a mixed methods approach will be used with end users to assess the system and clinician perspectives. RESULTS: Data collection and analysis are expected to conclude by August 2022. Based on our previous work on CONCERN, we expect the system to have a positive impact on the mortality rate and length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: The CONCERN CDS will increase team-based situational awareness and shared understanding of patients predicted to be at risk for clinical deterioration in need of intervention to prevent mortality and associated harm. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03911687; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03911687. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/30238.

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)0.056
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0560.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0090.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.011

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 head0.509
GPT teacher head0.663
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations28
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207