MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979895712 · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocz178

Training medical students and residents in the use of electronic health records: a systematic review of the literature

2019· review· en· W2979895712 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedical educationSystematic reviewMedical recordMEDLINEMedicineHealth carePsychologyFamily medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Our objectives were to identify educational interventions designed to equip medical students or residents with knowledge or skills related to various uses of electronic health records (EHRs), summarize and synthesize the results of formal evaluations of these initiatives, and compare the aims of these initiatives with the prescribed EHR-specific competencies for undergraduate and postgraduate medical education. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses) guidelines. We searched for English-language, peer-reviewed studies across 6 databases using a combination of Medical Subject Headings and keywords. We summarized the quantitative and qualitative results of included studies and rated studies according to the Best Evidence in Medical Education system. RESULTS: Our search yielded 619 citations, of which 11 studies were included. Seven studies involved medical students, 3 studies involved residents, and 1 study involved both groups. All interventions used a practical component involving entering information into a simulated or prototypical EHR. None of the interventions involved extracting, aggregating, or visualizing clinical data for panels of patients or specific populations. DISCUSSION: This review reveals few high-quality initiatives focused on training learners to engage with EHRs for both individual patient care and population health improvement. In comparing these interventions with the broad set of electronic records competencies expected of matriculating physicians, critical gaps in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education remain. CONCLUSIONS: With the increasing adoption of EHRs and rise of competency-based medical education, educators should address the gaps in the training of future physicians to better prepare them to provide high quality care for their patients and communities.

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.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.371 · 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