Experts speak: advice from key informants to small, rural hospitals on implementing the electronic health record system.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The US government has allocated $30 billion dollars to implement Electronic Health Records (EHRs) in hospitals and provider practices through a policy called Meaningful Use. Small, rural hospitals, particularly those designated as Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs), comprising nearly a quarter of US hospitals, had not implemented EHRs before. Little is known on implementation in this setting. We interviewed a spectrum of 31 experts in the domain. The interviews were then analyzed qualitatively to ascertain the expert recommendations. Nineteen themes emerged. The pool of experts included staff from CAHs that had recently implemented EHRs. We were able to compare their answers with those of other experts and make recommendations for stakeholders. CAH peer experts focused less on issues such as physician buy-in, communication, and the EHR team. None of them indicated concern or focus on clinical decision support systems, leadership, or governance. They were especially concerned with system selection, technology, preparatory work and a need to know more about workflow and optimization. These differences were explained by the size and nature of these small hospitals.
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 | 0.014 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".