EHR Learning – It’s about Nursing, Leadership and Long-Term Commitments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite a global commitment to the adoption of technologies, such as electronic health records (EHRs), to support the delivery of health services, there is little empirical guidance to support effective planning for the integration of these tools into practice settings (Suter et al. 2009). In particular, although EHR learning is known to positively influence integration (Byrne 2012), individual perspectives are often overlooked because of investigative designs that devalue such viewpoints by exploring the utility of technologies rather than the lived experiences of individual users of the technology. Therefore, this qualitative study offered nurse participants opportunities to make sense of EHR learning through talking about their experiences. This narrative inquiry was a collaborative interpretive method of discovery: stories and thematic analysis were the two separate yet complementary frames used to support data analysis. Finally, several practice implications and recommendations about EHR learning are presented with an emphasis placed upon patient safety as a way to impart accountability on behalf of learners, educators and those charged with governing responsibilities during times of EHR integration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".