Ghost Charts and Shadow Records: Implication for System Design
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ghost charts, sometimes referred to as shadow charts, are duplicate medical records. Governance documents in several countries suggest that ghost charts present a risk to patient safety, to the extent that they contain information which may not appear in an official hospital record. Although most would agree ghost charts should not exist, their existence is widespread. This paper reports on an in depth multi-method qualitative study of ghost charts undertaken in two ambulatory care settings in a Canadian hospital. The study was undertaken in order to inform the design and implementation of a clinical information system which it is hoped will eliminate the need for duplicate charts. Our research demonstrated that ghost charts filled a variety of needs only some of which are typically accounted for in electronic record design. We suggest that if the functions ghost charts fill are not addressed, their existence will persist. This work is significant in that few studies of ghost charts have been undertaken, and in the in-depth understanding it contributes to design requirements for electronic record systems.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it