MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1174308963 · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-574-6-45

Nurse Practitioner Perceptions of the Impact of Electronic Medical Records Upon Clinical Practice

2015· article· en· W1174308963 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elizabeth M. Borycki, Esther Sangster‐Gormley, Rita Schreiber, April Feddema, Janessa Griffith, Mindy Swamy

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical recordPerceptionNurse practitionersPrimary careElectronic medical recordNursingQuality (philosophy)Survey data collectionClinical PracticeMedicineFamily medicinePsychologyHealth carePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A survey was conducted in the province of British Columba, Canada with nurse practitioners (NP). This paper reports on the quantitative and qualitative findings of the survey questions specifically focused on NP perceptions of the clinical impacts associated with using electronic medical records (EMRs) in a primary care setting. Findings suggest that although NPs perceived EMRs to improve the overall quality of clinical decisions, challenges remain in terms of tailoring the design of EMRs to address NP needs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.445 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicNursing Diagnosis and DocumentationFrench-language works237,207