MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410355328 · doi:10.1200/cci-24-00306

User-Centered Design and Comparison of Two Electronic Health Record Tools to Support the Ordering of Crisantaspase Recombinant Chemotherapy

2025· article· en· W4410355328 on OpenAlex
Renee Potashner, Tracey Taylor, Ally Sarna, M. Cooper, Siron Thayaparan, Lillian Sung, Karim Jessa, Adam P. Yan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJCO Clinical Cancer Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrder entryLikert scaleDosingChemotherapyMedicinePatient satisfactionPatient safetyComputerized physician order entryHealth careNursingMedical emergencyInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE Chemotherapy ordering errors can have serious safety implications in pediatric oncology. Computerized provider order entry systems may reduce chemotherapy ordering errors. Crisantaspase recombinant (crisantaspase) is a chemotherapy drug used in pediatric leukemia that poses significant safety risk when ordering because of complex dosing and monitoring. The aim of this study was to compare errors, satisfaction, and efficiency between two approaches to ordering in our electronic health record: namely, the standard treatment plan order group (OG) and a novel supportive care plan (SCP). METHODS We recruited oncology providers and nurses at an academic pediatric institution. Providers were asked to complete two simulated chemotherapy ordering sessions using the treatment plan OG and the SCP. Order entry errors were assessed in seven domains, and the total number of order entry errors was calculated. Satisfaction was assessed using a five-point Likert scale, and satisfaction was defined as answering “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” to all five satisfaction questions. Efficiency was compared by measuring the time to complete the task. Errors, satisfaction, and efficiency were compared between the two tools. RESULTS We enrolled 14 providers and five nurses. The proportion of chemotherapy ordering errors was significantly lower with the SCP (5 of 98, 5.1%) compared with the treatment plan OG (11 of 98, 11.2%; P < .01). The SCP significantly improved provider efficiency, reducing the time taken to complete order entry from 16.3 minutes with the OG to 7.7 minutes with the SCP (mean difference, 8.6 minutes; P < .001). Provider satisfaction was significantly higher with the SCP (12 of 14, 85.7%) compared with the treatment plan OG (2 of 14, 14.2%; P < .001). CONCLUSION Use of a novel SCP instead of a tradition treatment plan OG improved provider efficiency and satisfaction while decreasing order entry errors. Thoughtful design and usability testing of chemotherapy order tools is needed to maximize their utility.

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.

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)0.007
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.237
GPT teacher head0.571
Teacher spread0.334 · 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