Laboratory stewardship perceptions and testing patterns at a pediatric tertiary care center
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite stewardship efforts, laboratory testing overuse persists across medicine. OBJECTIVES: To understand laboratory stewardship perceptions and testing patterns at a tertiary care pediatric hospital so that we could identify potential improvement opportunities. METHODS: An electronic survey exploring laboratory stewardship was sent to all pediatric medicine resident and staff physicians. Laboratory testing data were also assessed for patterns of testing and overuse. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 54% (43/80). The results indicated good familiarity with stewardship but poor familiarity with testing specifics (eg, cost). A mobile reference application was the most preferred quality improvement intervention, and online modules were the least desired. Overuse was apparent, with as many as 53% of laboratory tests being repeated within 7 days and only half of repeated tests subsequently yielding abnormal results. CONCLUSIONS: Altogether, the data we collated demonstrated poor understanding of laboratory stewardship and substantial repeat testing with few abnormal results. These study findings suggest that laboratory stewardship is lacking at our center, and that multiple improvement opportunities exist.
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it