MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402515404 · doi:10.2196/63076

Association of a Novel Electronic Form for Preoperative Cardiac Risk Assessment With Reduction in Cardiac Consultations and Testing: Retrospective Cohort Study

2024· article· en· W4402515404 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mandeep Kumar, Kathryn Wilkinson, Ya-Huei Li, Rohit Masih, M. Gandhi, Haleh Saadat, Julie Culmone

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Perioperative Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortRetrospective cohort studyPropensity score matchingMaceCardiac catheterizationCardiac surgeryInternal medicineEmergency medicineMedical recordElectronic medical recordAppropriate Use CriteriaCohort studyCardiologyMyocardial infarctionPercutaneous coronary intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Preoperative cardiac risk assessment is an integral part of preoperative evaluation; however, there is significant variation among providers, leading to inappropriate referrals for cardiology consultation or excessive low-value cardiac testing. We implemented a novel electronic medical record (EMR) form in our preoperative clinics to decrease variation. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the impact of the EMR form on the preoperative utilization of cardiology consultation and cardiac diagnostic testing (echocardiograms, stress tests, and cardiac catheterization) and evaluate postoperative outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients who underwent outpatient preoperative evaluation prior to an elective surgery over 2 years were divided into 2 cohorts: from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022 (pre-EMR form implementation), and from July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2023 (post-EMR form implementation). Demographics, comorbidities, resource utilization, and surgical characteristics were analyzed. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for differences between the 2 cohorts. The primary outcomes were the utilization of preoperative cardiology consultation, cardiac testing, and 30-day postoperative major adverse cardiac events (MACE). RESULTS: A total of 25,484 patients met the inclusion criteria. Propensity score matching yielded 11,645 well-matched pairs. The post-EMR form, matched cohort had lower cardiology consultation (pre-EMR form: n=2698, 23.2% vs post-EMR form: n=2088, 17.9%; P<.001) and echocardiogram (pre-EMR form: n=808, 6.9% vs post-EMR form: n=591, 5.1%; P<.001) utilization. There were no significant differences in the 30-day postoperative outcomes, including MACE (all P>.05). While patients with "possible indications" for cardiology consultation had higher MACE rates, the consultations did not reduce MACE risk. Most algorithm end points, except for active cardiac conditions, had MACE rates <1%. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort study, preoperative cardiac risk assessment using a novel EMR form was associated with a significant decrease in cardiology consultation and testing utilization, with no adverse impact on postoperative outcomes. Adopting this approach may assist perioperative medicine clinicians and anesthesiologists in efficiently decreasing unnecessary preoperative resource utilization without compromising patient safety or quality of care.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Perioperative MedicineSame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207