MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402598913 · doi:10.1177/08465371241281055

Standardizing Multidisciplinary Case Conferences and Improving Communication Between Referring Physicians and Radiologists: A Quality Improvement Initiative

2024· article· en· W4402598913 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zeyad Elias, Usman Tarique, Patrick Veit‐Haibach, Ania Z. Kielar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Association of Radiologists Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiology practices and education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMultidisciplinary approachIntervention (counseling)Quality managementStandardizationMedical physicsFamily medicineMedical emergencyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Assess the effectiveness of standardizing multidisciplinary case conferences (MDCs). Methods: Anonymous electronic surveys gauged opinions of abdominal radiologists engaged in recurring MDCs. A standardized Excel template, following Cancer Care Ontario guidelines and relevant literature, was distributed to MDC managers. Physicians were instructed to send cases 36 hours prior to MDC. Template adherence was assessed at 1.5 and 8 months. A follow-up survey at 4 months evaluated the intervention’s effectiveness. Results: 27/34 abdominal radiologists provided 47 baseline responses, and 12 delegated radiologists provided 23 follow-up responses. “Often/always” being provided the image’s location increased from 36% (17/47) at baseline to 70% (16/23) at follow-up. Non-adherence to the 36-hour cut-off decreased from 36% (16/45) to 17% (4/23). 72% disagreed that uploading remote imaging to hospital servers is easy (33/46), similar to follow-up (18/23, 78%). In assessing the intervention, 41% noted improved standardization (9/22), another 41% considered MDCs already standardized (9/22), and 18% reported no change (4/22). Those reporting no change experienced a higher frequency of non-adherence to the 36-hour cut-off (3/4, 75%) than others (1/18, 6%), and less frequent “often/always” ratings for image location being provided (3/4, 75%) than others (2/18, 11%). 89% (25/28) of MDCs adhered to the template. Issues regarding last-minute add-on cases may be mitigated through EPIC force functions. Artificial intelligence advancements may assist in retrieving external images and patient information. Conclusion: Adherence to MDC standardization was high, allowing for more efficient preparation, potentially reducing radiologist administrative burdens. Future force functions and artificial intelligence integration into electronic patient records may further augment this.

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)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.108
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.108
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Association of Radiologists JournalSame topicRadiology practices and educationFrench-language works237,207