To act or not to act: responses to electronic health record prompts by family medicine clinicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: A major focus of health care today is a strong emphasis on improving the health and quality of care for entire patient populations. One common approach utilizes electronic clinical alerts to prompt clinicians when certain interventions are due for individual patients being seen. However, these alerts have not been consistently effective, particularly for less visible (though important) conditions such as hearing loss (HL) screening. Materials and Methods: We conducted hour-long cognitive task analysis interviews to explore how family medicine clinicians view, perceive, and use electronic clinical alerts, and to utilize this information to design a more effective alert using HL identification and referral as a model diagnosis. Results: Four key direct barriers were identified that impeded alert use: poor standardization and formatting, time pressures in primary care, clinic workflow variations, and mental models of the condition being prompted (in this case, HL). One indirect barrier was identified: electronic health record and institution/government regulations. We identified that clinicians' mental model of the condition being prompted was probably the major barrier, though this was often expressed as time pressure. We discuss solutions to each of the 5 identified barriers, such as addressing physicians' mental models, by focusing on physicians' expertise rather than knowledge to improve their comfort when caring for patients with the conditions being prompted. Conclusions: To unleash the potential of electronic clinical alerts, electronic health record and health care institutions need to address some key barriers. We outline these barriers and propose solutions.
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 | 0.022 | 0.183 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".