Health worker perspectives of Smart Triage, a digital triaging platform for quality improvement at a referral hospital in Uganda: a qualitative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective triage at hospitals can improve outcomes for children globally by helping identify and prioritize care for those most at-risk of death. Paper-based pediatric triage guidelines have been developed to support frontline health workers in low-resource settings, but these guidelines can be challenging to implement. Smart Triage is a digital triaging platform for quality improvement (QI) that aims to address this challenge. Smart Triage represents a major cultural and behavioural shift in terms of managing patients at health facilities in low-and middle-income countries. The purpose of this study is to understand user perspectives on the usability, feasibility, and acceptability of Smart Triage to inform ongoing and future implementation. METHODS: This was a descriptive qualitative study comprising of face-to-face interviews with health workers (n = 15) at a regional referral hospital in Eastern Uganda, conducted as a sub-study of a larger clinical trial to evaluate Smart Triage (NCT04304235). Thematic analysis was used to assess the usability, feasibility, and acceptability of the platform, focusing on its use in stratifying and prioritizing patients according to their risk and informing QI initiatives implemented by health workers. RESULTS: With appropriate training and experience, health workers found most features of Smart Triage usable and feasible to implement, and reported the platform was acceptable due to its positive impact on reducing the time to treatment for emergency pediatric cases and its use in informing QI initiatives within the pediatric ward. Several factors that reduced the feasibility and acceptability were identified, including high staff turnover, a lack of medical supplies at the hospital, and challenges with staff attitudes. CONCLUSION: Health workers can use the Smart Triage digital triaging platform to identify and prioritize care for severely ill children and improve quality of care at health facilities in low-resource settings. Future innovation is needed to address identified feasibility and acceptability challenges; however, this platform could potentially address some of the challenges to implementing current paper-based systems.
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 | 0.023 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".