A Fully Collaborative, Noteless Electronic Medical Record Designed to Minimize Information Chaos: Software Design and Feasibility Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Clinicians spend large amounts of their workday using electronic medical records (EMRs). Poorly designed documentation systems contribute to the proliferation of out-of-date information, increased time spent on medical records, clinician burnout, and medical errors. Beyond software interfaces, examining the underlying paradigms and organizational structures for clinical information may provide insights into ways to improve documentation systems. In particular, our attachment to the note as the major organizational unit for storing unstructured medical data may be a cause of many of the problems with modern clinical documentation. Notes, as currently understood, systematically incentivize information duplication and information scattering, both within a single clinician's notes over time and across multiple clinicians' notes. Therefore, it is worthwhile to explore alternative paradigms for unstructured data organization. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility of building an EMR that does not use notes as the core organizational unit for unstructured data and which is designed specifically to disincentivize information duplication and information scattering. METHODS: We used specific design principles to minimize the incentive for users to duplicate and scatter information. By default, the majority of a patient's medical history remains the same over time, so users should not have to redocument that information. Clinicians on different teams or services mostly share the same medical information, so all data should be collaboratively shared across teams and services (while still allowing for disagreement and nuance). In all cases where a clinician must state that information has remained the same, they should be able to attest to the information without redocumenting it. We designed and built a web-based EMR based on these design principles. RESULTS: We built a medical documentation system that does not use notes and instead treats the chart as a single, dynamically updating, and fully collaborative workspace. All information is organized by clinical topic or problem. Version history functionality is used to enable granular tracking of changes over time. Our system is highly customizable to individual workflows and enables each individual user to decide which data should be structured and which should be unstructured, enabling individuals to leverage the advantages of structured templating and clinical decision support as desired without requiring programming knowledge. The system is designed to facilitate real-time, fully collaborative documentation and communication among multiple clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated the feasibility of building a non-note-based, fully collaborative EMR system. Our attachment to the note as the only possible atomic unit of unstructured medical data should be reevaluated, and alternative models should be considered.
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 | 0,021 | 0,048 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».