MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396994480 · doi:10.1681/asn.20213210s1125b

The Quality of Discharge Summaries After AKI

2021· article· en· W4396994480 on OpenAlexaff
C. Giles, Milica Novakovic, Wilma M. Hopman, Samuel A. Silver

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuality (philosophy)Intensive care medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Patients who survive acute kidney injury (AKI) are at increased risk of hospital readmission, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and death. However, most patients are unaware they experienced AKI, emphasizing the importance of high-quality communication between inpatient and outpatient health care providers. Our objectives were to determine how often different elements of AKI were mentioned in discharge summaries and to identify predictors of discharge summary quality after AKI. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of 300 randomly selected discharge summaries from 2015 to 2019. We included 150 hospitalizations before and after introduction of a post-AKI clinic in August 2017, with 50 patients from each Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) AKI stage. We assessed each discharge summary for 10 elements, including AKI course and follow-up recommendations. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine predictors of discharge summary quality. Results: The median number of AKI elements mentioned was 4/10 (IQR, 2-6). Follow-up with nephrology was documented for 33 (11%) patients. AKI-specific recommendations for labs and medication changes were noted in 66 (22%) and 80 (27%) discharge summaries, respectively. The odds of having a higher quality discharge summary (AKI elements ≥4/10) were greater for every increase in baseline creatinine (Cr) of 25 umol/L (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.42-2.43); intrarenal etiology (OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.23-4.41); increased AKI severity (stage 3 or kidney replacement therapy (KRT)) (OR, 6.85 and 4.39; 95% CI, 2.83-16.59 and 1.53-12.58, respectively); inpatient nephrology consultation (OR, 10.53; 95% CI, 4.82-22.98); and discharge Cr ≥100% above baseline (OR, 4.88; 95% CI, 1.80-13.26). Discharge summary quality did not improve with the introduction of a post-AKI clinic (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.44-1.31). Conclusions: Overall discharge summary quality in AKI survivors is poor, improving modestly for patients with baseline CKD, intrarenal etiology, severe AKI, higher discharge Cr, and inpatient nephrology involvement. Most discharge summaries are missing key post-AKI elements, including Cr trajectory and AKI-specific follow-up recommendations, even in patients receiving KRT. These gaps suggest an opportunity exists to improve discharge summary quality and communication post-AKI, especially for patients not assessed by nephrology as inpatients.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.096
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.096
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207