MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394979159 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsae067.01082

1082 Accreditation of Home Sleep Apnea Testing in British Columbia, Canada: The Types of Nonconformance

2024· article· en· W4394979159 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aleksei Markin, Nav Rakhra, Laura Homewood, Sharan Manship

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsCollege of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccreditationMedicineSleep apneaSleep (system call)Emergency medicineMedical emergencyMedical educationAnesthesiaComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Accreditation of Home Sleep Apnea Testing (HSAT) has been conducted in British Columbia (BC) since 2021. BC is one of only two provinces in Canada that require accreditation for HSAT facilities. In this study, we analyzed the types of nonconformance cited, based on the first facilities completing on-site assessments. Methods The accreditation process was divided into three phases: an initial attestation, a desktop audit, and an on-site assessment. In 2022-2023, we analyzed data from 46 HSAT facilities who have completed an onsite assessment based on 329 standards. The assessment approach included reviewing evidence, interviewing staff, and observing patient practices. All assessment questions were categorized and included a complete set of HSAT Accreditation Standards (1). The outcomes of these assessment activities highlighted nonconformance for the facilities to meet to obtain full accreditation. Results By December 2023, 46 out of 172 facilities in BC (26.7%) had completed on-site assessments, and 480 nonconformance were cited. The nonconformance identified in the on-site assessments was analyzed. Among the nonconformance, we found 105 (21.9%) in procedural and documentation areas, 78 citations (16.3%) in human resources standards, 54 (11.3%) in the medical director’s duties, 38 (7.9%) in HSAT equipment evaluation and maintenance aspects, 32 (6.7%) in reporting, 29 (6.0%) nonconformance were identified in ethical standards, 28 (5.8%) in complaint and feedback processes, 22 (4.6%) were related to technical HSAT issues, 18 (3.7%) in safety and privacy and the same number 18 (3.7%) were associated with patients communication problems, 13 (5.0%) nonconformance were in scoring and interpretation area, and 34 (7.1%) in referral process, infection prevention and control, and information management groups of standards. Conclusion Standalone HSAT facilities will continue to play a significant role in providing diagnostic sleep services. HSAT facilities have welcomed the accreditation process to facilitate continuous patient care and safety improvement. Our study, showing the first experience of the HSAT accreditation process, strives to create a path for further research on the positive influences of accreditation programs on public health indicators. Support (if any)

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207