MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2596739405 · doi:10.5430/jha.v6n2p74

The maturity assessment of hospital information systems based on Electronic Medical Record Adoption Model – A comparison between private and governmental hospitals

2017· article· en· W2596739405 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Masarat Ayat, Mohammad Sharifi, Maryam Jahanbakhsh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospital Administration · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmark (surveying)Maturity (psychological)BusinessHealth careMedical emergencyMedicineEconomic growthPolitical scienceGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today, Information Technology (IT) is considered as one of the major national development principles in each country which is applied in different fields. One of the most important fields in which IT is applied is health care and hospitals are similarly considered as most substantial organizations that use IT vastly. Although, different benchmarks and frameworks were developed to assess different aspects of Hospital Information Systems (HIS), still there was no reference model to benchmark HIS in the world until very recently. Eventually, Electronic Medical Record Adoption Model (EMRAM) which is globally a well-known model to benchmark the rate of HIS utilization in the hospitals, were emerged. Nevertheless, this model has not been introduced in majority of developing and even some developed countries in the world yet. In this study, EMRAM is applied to benchmark both governmental and private hospitals in Iran. This research is based on an applied descriptive method to assess five governmental and three private hospitals in Isfahan in 2015. This province is one of the most important provinces of Iran. The results reveal that HIS is not at the center of concern in these hospitals and are in the first and second maturity stages in accordance with EMRAM. Therefore, these types of hospitals are far away from desirable conditions and stages. Yet, the immaturity of HISs in private hospitals is more observable. This situation including the pressure of different beneficiaries such as insurance companies, has forced hospital managers to develop and enhance their HISs, especially in governmental 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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.379 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hospital AdministrationSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207