The Effects of Introducing a Mobile App–Based Procedural Logbook on Trainee Compliance to a Central Venous Catheter Insertion Accreditation Program: Before-and-After Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To reduce complications associated with central venous catheter (CVC) insertions, local accreditation programs using a supervised procedural logbook are essential. To increase compliance with such a logbook, a mobile app could provide the ideal platform for training doctors in an adult intensive care unit (ICU). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to compare trainee compliance with the completion of a logbook as part of a CVC insertion accreditation program, before and after the introduction of an app-based logbook. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study of logbook data, before and after the introduction of a purpose-built, app-based, electronic logbook to complement an existing paper-based logbook. Carried out over a 2-year period in the adult ICU of the John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, NSW, Australia, the participants were ICU trainee medical officers completing a CVC insertion accreditation program. The primary outcome was the proportion of all CVC insertions documented in the patients' electronic medical records appearing as logbook entries. To assess logbook entry quality, we measured and compared the proportion of logbook entries that were approved by a supervisor and contained a supervisor's signature for the before and after periods. We also analyzed trainee participation before and after the intervention by comparing the total number of active logbook users, and the proportion of first-time users who logged 3 or more CVC insertions. RESULTS: Of the 2987 CVC insertions documented in the electronic medical records between April 7, 2019, and April 6, 2021, 2161 (72%) were included and separated into cohorts before and after the app's introduction. Following the introduction of the app-based logbook, the percentage of CVC insertions appearing as logbook entries increased from 3.6% (38/1059) to 20.5% (226/1102; P<.001). There was no difference in the proportion of supervisor-approved entries containing a supervisor's signature before and after the introduction of the app, with 76.3% (29/38) and 83.2% (188/226), respectively (P=.31). After the introduction of the app, there was an increase in the percentage of active logbook users from 15.3% (13/85) to 62.8% (54/86; P<.001). Adherence to one's logbook was similar in both groups with 60% (6/10) of first-time users in the before group and 79.5% (31/39) in the after group going on to log at least 3 or more CVCs during their time working in ICU. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of an electronic app-based logbook to a preexisting paper-based logbook was associated with a higher rate of logbook compliance in trainee doctors undertaking an accreditation program for CVC insertion in an adult ICU. There was a large increase in logbook use observed without a reduction in the quality of logbook entries. The overall trainee participation also improved with an observed increase in active logbook users and no reduction in the average number of entries per user following the introduction of the app. Further studies on app-based logbooks for ICU procedural accreditation programs are warranted.
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 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".