An Education Framework for Effective Implementation of a Health Information System: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To optimize their use of a new Health Information System (HIS), supporting health care providers require effective HIS education. Failure to provide this education can significantly hinder an organization's HIS implementation and sustainability efforts. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to understand the most effective educational strategies and approaches to enable health care providers to optimally use an HIS. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, EBSCO Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and EBSCO Education Resources Information Center were searched to identify relevant papers. Relevant studies were systematically reviewed and analyzed using a qualitative thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Of the 3539 studies screened, 17 were included for data extraction. The literature on the most effective approaches to enable health care providers to optimally use an HIS emphasized the importance of investing in engaging and understanding learners in the clinical context, maximizing the transfer of learning to care, and designing continuous and agile evaluation to meet the emerging demands of the clinical environment. CONCLUSIONS: This review supports the advancement of a new HIS learning framework that organizational leaders and educators can use to guide HIS education design and development. Future research should examine how this framework can be translated into practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.081 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".