An AI-Enabled Predictive Harm Response Management Algorithmic Tool to Reduce Adverse Events in Health Care Settings (PreHaRM): Protocol for a Three-Phase Model Development and Pilot-Testing Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current data analysis and coordination methods do not effectively support nurses and midwives in risk reduction, as retrospective reporting does not allow real-time insights and precludes proactive, preventive care. Analysis of administrative data within Australia's health care sector to predict risk may help address this shortcoming. Predictive analytics can transform these data into meaningful insights, identifying harm risk profiles that benefit the performance of Australian and international clinical programs. Importantly, these tools may support nurses and midwives in preventing adverse events and predicting high-risk situations. Researchers, in collaboration with local health network staff, will develop a proof-of-concept predictive risk algorithm. The "predictive harm response management algorithmic tool to reduce adverse events in healthcare settings" program (project DHCRC-0156) will provide real-time insights via an interactive dashboard, enabling nurses, midwives, and health administration to assess risks and optimize resources in health care settings. This protocol details the algorithm development activities for subproject 1a, predictive risk model development, which aims to develop and pilot-test a predictive harm algorithm across 2 South Australian local health networks. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify the clinical harm outcome of interest and relevant data sources per site and build a suitable data solution to model predictors of harm risk and identify actionable clinical, workforce, and environmental factors that affect the harm outcome of interest. METHODS: This study design includes three phases: (1) model generation, (2) model evaluation, and (3) prototype development. Data linkage by SA-NT DataLink can only proceed following approval from each of the following: the South Australia Department for Health and Wellbeing Human Research Ethics Committee, the University of South Australia Human Research Ethics Committee, and hospital governance committees. The clinical dataset will be split into a training set, a validation set, and a test set. Exploratory data analysis will be undertaken to ascertain features and classify outcomes from the raw dataset. Derived features will be computed, feature correlations will be estimated, and initial feature selection will be performed. Iterative model development will occur over 3 stages, and a dashboard to display these results will be developed. RESULTS: The study commenced on July 19, 2021, and will conclude on December 31, 2025. Finalized results are expected in December 2025. CONCLUSIONS: This research will conclude with the development of the algorithm for transferability to health care environments. Research activities will be detailed in publicly available reports and manuscripts prepared for peer-reviewed journals that will be drafted in accordance with existing and appropriate checklists. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/75474.
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 | 0.057 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.008 |
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".