MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120005691

Switching Electronic Health Record Systems: Effects on Rounds and Perceived Impact on Communication andWorkflow in a Paediatric Critical Care Unit

2019· article· en· W3120005691 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew W. Bateman, Jessica Tomasi, Anne‐Marie Guerguerian, Peter C. Laussen, Patricia Trbovich

Bibliographic record

VenueCMBES Proceedings · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisPsychological interventionWorkflowMedicineNursingQualitative researchElectronic health recordPerceptionMedical educationPsychologyHealth careComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The overall objective of this study was to explore the impact that switching electronic health record (EHR) systems has on daily bedside rounds in a paediatric critical care unit. Naturalistic observations were used to contextualize rounds and to characterize how EHRs are used during rounds. Semi-structured interviews occurred in two phases. In phase one, interviews were conducted with clinicians to elicit detailed perceptions of rounds, and to understand how EHRs were used during rounds. Six months after the implementation of a new EHR system, phase two interviews were conducted to understand perceptions on how the new EHR system had impacted communication and workflow during rounds. Thematic analysis was performed on the qualitative notes from observations and interviews to identify patterns based on the data collected. Results of thematic analysis indicate that switching EHRs has an impact on how clinicians prepare for rounds, access information during rounds and document patient care goals during rounds. The results from this study will inform the design of interventions to improve daily bedside rounds in future work.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.381 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMBES ProceedingsSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207