Engaging Physicians in the Use of Electronic Medical Records
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
23 Although this article could be applied to physicians across all specialties, our focus is on the engagement of Canadian primary care physicians in the use of Electronic Medical Record (EMR) systems. The objective of our article is to suggest a methodology that can be followed in order to assist in the physician’s adoption of EMR. It would be presumptuous to state that we have all the answers when it comes to an issue as complex as the adoption of EMR by physicians; however, there are broad principles that can provide an organized and logical approach towards the implementation of these systems. Before we begin to describe the methodology, let’s have a quick look at where the Canadian healthcare system is when it comes to EMR. Despite Canada being essentially a single-payer system (in contrast to the much more complex U.S. healthcare system), there has been a relatively poor uptake and use of EMR systems in primary care, in contrast to European countries such as The Netherlands and Denmark. Ninety-five percent or more of all primary care physicians in Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and the United Kingdom use computers in their practices. (The countries where the largest proportions of general practitioners are using electronic medical records are Sweden (90%); The Netherlands (88%); Denmark (62%); The United Kingdom (58%); Finland (56%); and Austria (55%).). The average for all 15 EU countries is 80%. The apathy toward electronic medical record systems in Canada has created a significant challenge. What can be done, and is it the physician or the system that is at fault? The government is starting to do its part as funding is being committed federally and provincially to assist the primary care physician in moving towards electronic medical record systems. This is being done with the hope that the studies, money and talk will enhance the uptake of the technology. However, all the work is overshadowed by a national need for data communication standards and the approval of electronic signatures before wider use of technology becomes more commonplace. Fortunately, the development of standards and legislative approval of electronic signatures is currently taking place at both a provincial and federal level. Some examples of the funding being committed at federal and provincial levels to support the uptake and increased use of EMR systems by physicians include the POSP project in Alberta and the Ontario Family Health Network. In addition, on a national scale, the Engaging Physicians in the Use of Electronic Medical Records
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,123 | 0,197 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,011 | 0,010 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,012 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».