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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
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