MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791162515 · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocx153

A snapshot of health information exchange across five nations: an investigation of frontline clinician experiences in emergency care

2017· article· en· W2791162515 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Seth Klapman, Emily Sher, Julia Adler‐Milstein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical School, University of MichiganUniversity of Michigan
KeywordsHealth information exchangeMedicineSAFERThematic analysisHealth careMedical emergencyInformation exchangeNursingFamily medicineQualitative researchHealth information

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Ensuring the ability to exchange patient information among disparate electronic health records systems is a top priority and a domain of substantial public investment across countries. However, we know little about the extent to which current capabilities meet the needs of frontline clinicians. Materials and Methods: We conducted in-person, semistructured interviews with emergency care physicians and nurses in select hospitals in Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, and the USA. We characterized the state of health information exchange (HIE) by country and used thematic analysis to identify the perceived benefits of access to complete past medical history (PMH), the conditions under which PMH is sought, and the challenges to accessing and using HIE capabilities. Results: HIE approaches, and the information electronically accessible to clinicians, differed by country. Benefits of access to PMH included safer care, reduced patient length of stay, and fewer lab and imaging orders. Conditions under which PMH was sought included moderate-acuity patients, patients with chronic conditions, and instances where accessing PMH was convenient. Challenges to HIE access and use included difficulty knowing where information is located, delay in receiving information, and difficulty finding information within documents. Discussion: Even with different HIE approaches across countries, all clinicians reported shortcomings in their country's approach. Notably, challenges were similar and shaped the conditions under which PMH was sought. Conclusion: As countries continue to pursue broad-based HIE, they appear to be facing similar challenges in realizing HIE value and therefore have an opportunity to learn from one another.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.010
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.422 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Medical Informatics AssociationSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207