We evaluated the DiscovErr system, in which we had previously implemented a new methodology for assessment of compliance to continuous application of evidence-based clinical guidelines, based on a bidirectional search from the guideline objectives to the patient's longitudinal data, and vice versa. We compared the system comments on 1584 transactions regarding the management, over a mean of 5.23 years, of 10 randomly selected Type 2 diabetes patients, to those of two diabetes experts and a senior family practitioner. After providing their own comments, the experts assessed both the correctness (precision) and the importance of each of the DiscovErr system comments. The completeness (recall or coverage) of the system was computed by comparing its comments to those made by the experts. The system made 279 comments. The experts made 181 unique comments. The completeness of the system was 91% compared to comments made by at least two experts, and 98% when compared to comments made by all three. 172 comments were evaluated by the experts for correctness and importance: All 114 medication-related comments, and a random 35% of the 165 monitoring-related comments. The system's correctness was 81% compared to comments judged as correct by both diabetes experts, and 91% compared to comments judged as correct by a diabetes expert and at least as partially correct by the other. 89% of the comments were judged as important by both diabetes experts, 8% were judged as important by one expert, 3% were judged as less important by both experts. The completeness scores of the three experts (compared to the comments of all experts plus the validated system comments) were 75%, 60%, and 55%; the experts' correctness scores (compared to their majority) were respectively 99%, 91%, and 88%. Conclusion: Systems such as DiscovErr can assess the quality of continuous guideline-based care.
翻译：我们对DiscovErr系统进行了评估。 我们之前在对DiscovErr系统进行双向搜索的基础上,对持续应用基于证据的临床准则的合规性进行了评估,从准则目标到病人的纵向数据进行双向搜索,反之亦然。我们将系统对1584项管理交易的评论进行了比较,平均为5.23年,10个随机选择的2型糖尿病病人,10个随机选择的2型糖尿病患者,与2名糖尿病专家和1名高级家庭医生的系统比较。专家们在提供自己的评论意见之后,评估了对持续应用基于证据的临床准则的正确性(精度)和每项评论的重要性。系统的完整性(重新点数或覆盖范围)是通过将其评论与专家的评论进行比较来计算的。系统的完整性(重新点数或覆盖范围)是:系统的完整性(重新点数)与专家的准确性(精确性)相比为91%,专家的准确性(评斷斷斷斷值)为:所有与药品相关的评论为94%,与监测相关的评论为35 %; 一位专家的准确性(评分为81 %),专家评分为专家的正确性为91%,专家评为专家评为91%,专家评为正确性为91%,专家评为正确性的专家评为91%,专家评为91%,专家评为正确性为正确性为正确性为91%,专家评为专家评为91%,专家评为91%,专家评为91%,专家评为正确性,专家评为91%,专家评为91%,专家评为91%,专家评为91%,专家评为91%,专家评为正确性为91%,专家评为正确性为91%,专家评为正确性为91%,专家评为正确,专家评为正确,专家评为91%,专家评为99%,专家评为正确性为正确为正确为正确性为91%,专家评为99%,专家评为91%,专家评为91%,专家评为正确性为正确性为正确性为99%,专家评为99%,专家评为99%,专家评为99%,专家评为99%,专家评为99%,专家评为91%,专家评为99%,专家评为正确性为99%,专家评为
相关内容
Source: Apple - iOS 8
微信扫码咨询专知VIP会员