MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405597599 · doi:10.3138/cjgim.2024.0013

Virtual multidisciplinary preoperative assessments: A multi-site formative evaluation and evidence-based guide for implementing change

2024· article· en· W4405597599 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Michael Prystajecky, Robin Manaloor, Erin Barbour‐Tuck, Heather Dyck, Diana Ermel, Angela Baerwald, Jennifer O’Brien, Jonathan Gamble

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of General Internal Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatchewan Health AuthorityRoyal University Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormative assessmentMultidisciplinary approachBlueprintThematic analysisMedicineFocus groupMedical educationHealth careNursingKnowledge managementProcess managementQualitative researchPsychologyComputer scienceEngineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Virtual care has recently gained momentum yet remains underutilized for preoperative assessment. We applied implementation science methodology to the development of a virtual preoperative assessment pathway. Methods: We conducted a two-phase formative evaluation of a multidisciplinary virtual preoperative assessment. In phase 1, we conducted semi-structured interviews with patients, family members, health care providers, and decision makers to explore their experiences and perceptions of virtual care and preoperative assessment. We performed thematic analysis using the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework to identify factors influencing the implementation of virtual preoperative assessments. In phase 2, evidence-based strategies from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) were matched to PARIHS themes and rated for importance and feasibility by stakeholders using Go-Zone analysis. Results: Forty stakeholders were interviewed, including 12 patients or family members, 18 health care providers, and 10 decision makers. Eight themes and 49 subthemes were identified to focus the implementation of virtual preoperative assessment. Twelve implementation strategies were judged to be most important and feasible by stakeholders: develop a formal implementation blueprint, identify early adopters, identify and prepare champions, involve patients and family members, conduct local consensus discussions, build a coalition, develop educational materials, distribute educational materials, prepare patients to be active participants, revise professional roles, re-examine the implementation, and stage implementation scaleup. Discussion: We identified 12 evidence-based strategies to guide the implementation of virtual multidisciplinary preoperative assessments. Our findings can be used to guide implementation of this care innovation in other settings.

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)0.419
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.290
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4190.290
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0110.009
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0080.010
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.363
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of General Internal MedicineSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207