Development and implementation of a quick reference (QR) code linked online education tool in anaesthesiology practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We conducted a feasibility study of an anaesthetic online educational tool that is accessed via quick reference (QR) codes. The primary objective of the study was to assess the feasibility of an online educational tool for providing satisfactory teaching to patients presenting for surgery and assess if using QR codes are a viable method for directing patients to the information. The secondary objective was to obtain feedback from anaesthesiologists. METHODS: The educational tool was developed and hosted on a password-protected website. The educational material on the website focused on anaesthesia-related processes that the patient should expect to experience in the hospital as well as fasting information. A survey was embedded into the website to obtain patient feedback. The website was redesigned following patient and staff feedback. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients accessed the online education tool. Of the 73 responses to the survey, 81% of patients reported that the tool improved their knowledge and understanding about anaesthesia. 73% of patients expressed a preference for, or were neutral regarding using online patient education. 36% of patients were familiar with QR codes and 28% were frequent users of QR codes. Most anaesthesiologists expressed satisfaction with the tool being used by their patients following the redesign process (93.1%, 89.6% and 89.6% for general anaesthesia, neuraxial anaesthesia and regional anaesthesia, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study demonstrated that an online anaesthetic educational tool has utility in promoting patient education about the anaesthetic experience and was well received by both patients and anaesthesiologists. QR codes are not feasible as the sole method for linking our patient population to an online education resource.
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 | 0.034 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".