Evaluating the impact of electronical medical record systems on patient-centered primary care
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVESThere is a strong movement towards patient-centered care, as well as electronic medical record systems (EMRS) implementation, particularly in primary care settings. The actual impact of EMRS on patient-centered primary care (PCPC) has yet to be investigated. The Canada Health Infoway national survey offers an opportunity to explore the link between PCPC and EMRS. The objective of this thesis is: (1) to identify a conceptual framework for PCPC that can be used to evaluate the impact of EMRS on PCPC, (2) to evaluate what elements of a screening survey provides relevant information to assess how EMRS impact PCPC, and (3) to evaluate to what extent elements of a screening survey provides adequate information to assess how EMRS impact PCPC.METHODSThe initial step consisted of conducting a literature search using articles from Embase and MEDLINE, to identify an optimal conceptual framework for PCPC to evaluate the impact of EMRS on PCPC. For the subsequent steps, secondary data from the Canada Health Infoway national screening survey was used. Surveys completed from 70 primary care clinics across Canada were obtained. Variable matching was used for each of the survey’s EMRS impact statements to qualitatively identify their relevance to each of the dimensions of the indentified PCPC conceptual framework. Subsequently, PCPC impact scores (%) were calculated from variable matching relevance scores to identify the relevance of patient-centeredness of each of the national survey’s EMRS impact statements in primary care. Additionally, for each dimension, PCPC dimensional relevance (%) as ratios amongst each other, were calculated from variable matching relevance scores to identify if the survey unequivalently captured dimensions. Finally, for each EMRS impact statement, physician agreement and PCPC impact scores were used in combination to capture physician agreement on the degree of the EMRS impact on PCPC.RESULTSThe most prevalently cited conceptual framework for patient-centered care was the 6 dimensional Patient-Centered Clinical Method. Subsequently this framework went on to be revised and condensed into the 5 dimensional Mead and Bower model. Based on these conceptual frameworks the Hudon framework was identified and adopted for this thesis. This framework consists of four over-lapping dimensions of the previous two frameworks, specifically for primary care. Out of the survey`s 20 EMRS impact statements, only 11 were positive for relevance to PCPC (PCPC impact score > 0%). The Canada Health Infoway national screening survey could only assess 12.3% (s.d. 30.2, overall mean PCPC impact score) of EMRS impact on PCPC. The PCPC dimensional relevance revealed that the survey did not equally capture the four PCPC dimensions: 42.9% for Clinician-Patient Relationship (Therapeutic Alliance) dimension, followed by 28.6% for Whole Person Care (BioPsychoSocial Perspective), 14.3% for Common Ground (Sharing Power and Responsibility), and 14.3% for Disease and Illness Experience (Patient As A Person). Physicians were in agreement that the EMRS apparently had no significant impact on PCPC (0.04 s.d. 0.63, on a Likert scale of -2 to +2).CONCLUSIONSThe Hudon conceptual framework for patient centered care was identified as the optimal model for evaluating the impact of EMRS on PCPC. The data from the Canada Health Infoway national survey was able to assess some of the dimensions of PCPC and examine the impact of EMRS on PCPC, but did not capture all the elements consistently. Certain PCPC dimensions may be more sensitive than others to EMRS implementation. Further studies need to be conducted that target the impact of EMRS on PCPC. Additionally, studies need to be conducted to identify if EMRS implementation preferentially affects the distribution of different dimensions of PCPC.
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 | 0,084 | 0,252 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,012 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
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 ».