MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

310.7: Development of the Nova Scotia potential donor audit tool and historic performance database: lessons learned from the first 1000 chart reviews

2023· article· en· W4387610493 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kristina Krmpotic, Jade Dirk, Cynthia Isenor, Alain Landry, Matthew J. Weiss, Stephen Beed

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNova scotiaAuditChartDatabaseLibrary scienceJADE (particle detector)HistoryComputer scienceArchaeologyBusinessStatisticsAccountingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Adequate legislation and accountability frameworks are key components of high performing deceased donation systems. In 2021, the province of Nova Scotia, Canada, became the first jurisdiction in North America to enact deemed consent legislation. This was accompanied by government provision of frontline financial resources to support further development of program infrastructure, including implementation of means to evaluate system performance. Method: To quantitatively evaluate system performance before and after the legislative change, the provincial organ donation program, in collaboration with other key stakeholders, used an iterative design process to develop a Potential Donor Audit tool and electronic database for referral intake and manual performance audits. Retrospective chart reviews of patients in the calendar year prior to legislative change (2020) were conducted to pilot and revise the tool and evaluate missed potential donation opportunities. Results: The Nova Scotia tool was piloted on 1028 patient deaths, with limited medical record documentation of several fields including: religion (66%), ethnicity (2.8%), and gender (0%), referrals to the medical examiner (45.2%) and regional tissue bank (4.8%). Coding of free text entries for “cause of death” resulted in creation of 17 drop down categories. In total, 518 (50.4%) met clinical triggers for referral to the organ donation program; only 72 were referred (86.1% missed referral rate). Only 244 (54.7%) of 446 non-referred patients had a documented reason for non-referral. Of 163 patients meeting the Nova Scotia definition of a potential donor, 53 (32.5%) were referred, yielding 110 missed potential donors. Of these, only 6 (5.5%) had documentation of a donation discussion with next-of-kin. Reasons for non-approach were only documented in 30 (28.8%) the remaining 104 missed potential donors. Consent rates for referred patients reached 71.7% (n=38 of 53 next-of-kin approaches); reasons for next-of-kin decline were documented for all remaining patients. The actualized donation rate reported by Canadian Blood Services in 2020 was 29.9 donors per million population (n=34 donors). Conclusion: We documented a high rate of missed referral and missed potential donors in Nova Scotia in the year prior to enactment of mandatory referral and deemed consent legislation. This information supports the decision of the Nova Scotia ODP to intentionally broaden clinical criteria for referral to shift responsibility of identifying medically suitable potential donors from bedside clinicians to organ donation specialists and develop targeted educational initiatives related to these changes. Furthermore, piloting the potential donor audit tool as a part of an iterative development process was useful for creation of a data dictionary, variable modification, and workflow changes in the electronic database, yielding a tool that may be useful for other jurisdictional audits, contribution to national donor audits, and novel research programs.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantation→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→