ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Artificial intelligence approach to optimise safety for hospitalised patients with dementia.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the study is to develop a machine learning (ML) model to identify contributing factors to dementia-related safety events using patient safety event report data.
methodThis study uses dementia-related safety event reports from a patient safety reporting system of a 10-hospital health system in the USA. Contributing factors to safety events were coded using the Yorkshire contributory factors framework based on free-text descriptions in the reports. The coded event reports were used to develop two ML models using eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), one to classify situational patient factors and another to classify active failures relating to human error.
resultsWe used 1387 safety event reports for model development, 989 (71.3%) reports related to situational factors and 119 (8.6%) reports related to active failures. The model for situational factors achieved a precision of 0.843 and a recall of 0.826. The F1 score was 0.834, indicating a balance of precision and recall performance. The specificity of the model was 0.639 and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC) was 0.833. The final model for active failure achieved a precision of 0.333 and a recall of 0.056. The F1 score was 0.095, reflective of imbalanced precision and recall performance. The specificity of the model was 0.992, indicating a strong ability to identify negative cases, and the ROC AUC was 0.817.
conclusionML techniques can provide insights into situational factors and active failures that drive dementia-related safety events. These insights can inform targeted interventions such as specialised staff training for behavioural symptoms management and pharmacist-led medication optimisation, to enhance care and safety for hospitalised people living with dementia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.