MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047117112 · doi:10.4236/ti.2020.113005

Adopting Healthcare Information Exchange among Organizations, Regions, and Hospital Systems toward Quality, Sustainability, and Effectiveness

2020· article· en· W3047117112 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maria José Amaral Salomi, Priscila Borin de Oliveira Claro

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology and Investment · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth information exchangeBusinessSustainabilityInformation exchangeHealth careQuality (philosophy)Service (business)Work (physics)Knowledge managementProcess managementMarketingComputer scienceHealth informationEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adopting data and information integration and exchange between two or more organizations, regions, communities, health insurance companies, and hospital systems has gradually become a requirement to improve health care quality, sustainability in management of work processes, and efficiency and effectiveness in financial and administrative management through cost monitoring and improved clinical protocols. The central aim of this study was to demonstrate how the use of Health Information Exchange (HIE) models helps increase quality, sustainability, efficiency, and effectiveness through data and information integration and exchange. Data collection were performed through an assessment of the literature in the timeframe between 2002 and 2016 referring to academic or non-academic organizations. The analysis of the literature considered Brazilian, American, and European articles. The results from the research on electronic databases were not satisfactory for the Brazilian scenario, where this theme is still very recent. Results from statistical, quantitative, and qualitative analyses showing data, indices, and the use of ICTs through dedicated software showed that health data and information exchange is capable of improving: 1) the quality of care given to patients and employees of the institution; 2) sustainability in management of work processes and activities pertaining to the relationship between providers, users, and service offer; 3) effectiveness and efficiency in operational cost monitoring and service protocols, giving the health institutions a prominent position in their fields in the eyes of external investors. Regarding the appropriate, legally- and policy-compliant use of data and information exchange and integration, organizations must obey legal requirements in conformity with each country’s current legislation. Suggestions for future studies are given at the end.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.078
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0780.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0220.024
Open science0.0020.013
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnology and InvestmentSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207