MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2294717927 · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-432-9-196

How are Electronic Medical Records Used by Nurse Practitioners?

2014· article· en· W2294717927 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elizabeth M. Borycki, Esther Sangster‐Gormley, Rita Schreiber, Joanne Thompson, Janessa Griffith, April Feddema, Alex Kuo

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical recordNurse practitionersMedicineElectronic medical recordChronic diseaseDiseaseFamily medicineNursingDisease managementHealth recordsQualitative researchHealth careSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we describe how nurse practitioners (NPs) use electronic medical records (EMR) features and functions at: (1) an individual and (2) a clinic level to support patient wellness and chronic disease management activities. Fifteen NPs from British Columbia (BC), Canada participated in a qualitative, semi-structured interview study. NPs used EMRs with individual patients and at a clinic level to support wellness and chronic disease management activities. NP's used clinic notes, reminders, tasks and careplans to support wellness and disease management activities in individual patients while reports were used to manage patients at a clinic level.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.230
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.230
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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