Taking Note of the Perceived Value and Impact of Medical Student Chart Documentation on Education and Patient Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the extent of restrictions to medical student documentation in patients' records and the opinions of medical education leaders about such restrictions' impact on medical student education and patient care. METHOD: Education deans (n = 126) of medical schools in the United States and Canada were surveyed to determine policies regarding placement of medical student notes in the patient record, the value of medical students' documentation in the medical record, and the use of electronic medical records (EMRs) for patient notes. The instrument was a 23-item anonymous Web survey. RESULTS: Seventy-nine deans responded. Over 90% believed student notes belong in medical records, but only 42% had a policy regarding this. Ninety-three percent indicated that without student notes, student education would be negatively affected. Fewer (56%) indicated that patient care would be negatively affected. Most thought limiting students' notes would negatively affect several other issues: feeling a part of the team (96%), preparation for internship (95%), and students' sense of involvement (94%). Half (52%) reported that fourth-year students could place notes in paper charts at "all" affiliated hospitals, and 6% reported that fourth-year students could do so at "no" hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Although students' ability to enter notes in patients' records is believed to be important for student education, only about half of all hospitals allow all students' notes in the EMR. Policies regarding placement of student notes should be implemented to ensure students' competency in note writing and their value as members of the patient care team.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".