Visualizing Patient Pathways and Identifying Data Repositories in a UK Neurosciences Center: Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Health and clinical activity data are a vital resource for research, improving patient care and service efficiency. Health care data are inherently complex, and their acquisition, storage, retrieval, and subsequent analysis require a thorough understanding of the clinical pathways underpinning such data. Better use of health care data could lead to improvements in patient care and service delivery. However, this depends on the identification of relevant datasets. Objective: We aimed to demonstrate the application of business process modeling notation (BPMN) to represent clinical pathways at a UK neurosciences center and map the clinical activity to corresponding data flows into electronic health records and other nonstandard data repositories. Methods: We used BPMN to map and visualize a patient journey and the subsequent movement and storage of patient data. After identifying several datasets that were being held outside of the standard applications, we collected information about these datasets using a questionnaire. Results: We identified 13 standard applications where neurology clinical activity was captured as part of the patient's electronic health record including applications and databases for managing referrals, outpatient activity, laboratory data, imaging data, and clinic letters. We also identified 22 distinct datasets not within standard applications that were created and managed within the neurosciences department, either by individuals or teams. These were being used to deliver direct patient care and included datasets for tracking patient blood results, recording home visits, and tracking triage status. Conclusions: Mapping patient data flows and repositories allowed us to identify areas wherein the current electronic health record does not fulfill the needs of day-to-day patient care. Data that are being stored outside of standard applications represent a potential duplication in the effort and risks being overlooked. Future work should identify unmet data needs to inform correct data capture and centralization within appropriate data architectures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".