The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Waiting Time for Medical Care in an Urgent Care Service for COVID-19: Single-Center Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To demonstrate the value of implementation of an artificial intelligence solution in health care service, a winning project of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Hacking Medicine Brazil competition was implemented in an urgent care service for health care professionals at Hospital das Clínicas of the Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the impact of implementation of the digital solution in the urgent care service, assessing the reduction of nonvalue-added activities and its effect on the nurses' time required for screening and the waiting time for patients to receive medical care. METHODS: This was a single-center, comparative, prospective study designed according to the Public Health England guide "Evaluating Digital Products for Health." A total of 38,042 visits were analyzed over 18 months to determine the impact of implementing the digital solution. Medical care registration, health screening, and waiting time for medical care were compared before and after implementation of the digital solution. RESULTS: The digital solution automated 92% of medical care registrations. The time for health screening increased by approximately 16% during the implementation and in the first 3 months after the implementation. The waiting time for medical care after automation with the digital solution was reduced by approximately 12 minutes compared with that required for visits without automation. The total time savings in the 12 months after implementation was estimated to be 2508 hours. CONCLUSIONS: The digital solution was able to reduce nonvalue-added activities, without a substantial impact on health screening, and further saved waiting time for medical care in an urgent care service in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".