Medical Student Documentation in the Emergency Department in the Electronic Health Record Era—A National Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Implementation of electronic health record (EHR) has generated a new challenge in the practice of medical student documentation in the emergency department (ED). This study discerns both the current practices and consensus opinions of pediatric ED directors and Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) student representatives regarding best practices for documentation by medical students in the ED EHR nationwide. METHODS: The authors conducted a cross-sectional Web-based survey of the directors of academic pediatric EDs and AAMC student representatives using Qualtric survey engine. The survey asked participants to describe their current practices and their opinion regarding the utility of and best practices for medical student documentation in the ED. RESULTS: Approximately 47% (35/74) of pediatric ED directors and 54% (70/129) of AAMC medical schools' student representatives responded to the survey. Both groups demonstrated similar opinions of the critical importance and advantage of medical students' documentation in the ED (P ≥ 0.99). However, these 2 groups differed in opinion on the impact of medical student documentation on clinical care of the ED patients (P = 0.008). The survey found that 83% of medical students and 74% of ED directors believe that medical students should be documenting in the EHR. The majority of both groups (51% of medical students and 65% of ED directors) preferred a single, combined attending physician-medical student note for clinical documentation. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents data describing the current practice of medical student documentation in academic pediatric EDs in the United States. There is a strong consensus among educators and students on the usefulness of medical student documenting patient encounters in the ED.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".