MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2412067939 · doi:10.1055/s-0035-1569059

Electronic Medical Record in Pediatric Intensive Care: Implementation Process Assessment

2015· article· en· W2412067939 on OpenAlex
Marie-Pier Matton, Baruch Toledano, Catherine Litalien, Dominique Vallee, Fabrice Brunet, Philippe Jouvet

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Intensive Care · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersCHU Sainte-Justine FoundationCentre hospitalier universitaire Sainte-Justine
KeywordsMedicineElectronic medical recordElectronic health recordHealth careMedical emergencyIntensive careAnalyticsMedical recordNursingIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The implementation of an electronic medical record (EMR) is a high-priority project in a majority of industrialized countries. The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Analytics established an eight-stage EMR Adoption Model (EMRAM) to track progress against health care organizations across a country. In Canada, 36.5% of the hospitals are at the stage 3 or higher, whereas 0.2% have reached the seventh stage. To assess the impact on the safety and caregivers' satisfaction of a stage 7 EMR in a Quebec Pediatric Hospital initially at the EMRAM stage 3, a pilot customized implementation of paperless pediatric intensive care EMR was performed and evaluated. Six months after implementation, there was a nonsignificant decrease in severe medical incidents in comparison to the same period of time, the previous year. Most pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) staff were very or completely comfortable with the EMR, but the EMR satisfied 33.9% of all staff (everyday users [internal staff] and occasional user [external staff]) and 41.9% of internal staff only. The information gathered with this pilot EMR implementation using a 20-month preparation period and a continuous monitoring including change management ("living lab approach") after the "go live" helped in the success of the implementation but did not improve significantly caregivers' satisfaction, in the first 6 months of this dramatic change in practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.433 · 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