MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2475892674 · doi:10.1111/ecc.12548

A cancer care electronic medical record highly integrated into clinicians' workflow: users' attitudes pre-post implementation

2016· article· en· W2475892674 on OpenAlexafffund
C. Sicotte, S. Clavel, Marie-Andrée Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cancer Care · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-AppalachesCentre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux des LaurentidesCentre Integre de Sante et de Services Sociaux de LavalUniversité de Montréal
FundersInforoute Santé du CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineWorkflowElectronic medical recordElectronic health recordMedical recordCancerFamily medicineMedical emergencyNursingMedical physicsHealth careInternal medicineDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose was to study users' attitudes towards an electronic medical record (EMR) closely integrated into the clinicians' cancer care workflow. The EMR, implemented in an ambulatory cancer care centre, was designed as a care pathway information system providing real-time support to the coordination of shared care processes involving all the care personnel. Mixed method pre-post study design was used. The study population consisted of all care personnel. A survey measured the quality attributes of the EMR, the clinical information it produces, the perceived usefulness of the system for supporting clinical data management tasks and the perceived impacts in terms of access and quality of care. The survey shows that users' attitudes towards the EMR (response rate of 71%) measured after the go-live were positive ranging from 3.42 to 3.95 on a 5-point scale. Besides, the content analysis of 33 pre-post interviews revealed five main themes: magnitude of the changes caused by the EMR; its innovative potential; its positive benefits; an ongoing growth in users' expectancies; and the burden associated with the time required to operate the EMR. In sum, the study shows that users can largely apply innovative uses of information technologies that automate their clinical processes.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.429 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cancer CareSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207