MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205446376 · doi:10.3233/shti210951

A Resilience Model for Moderating Outcomes Related to Electronic Medical Record Downtime

2022· book-chapter· en· W4205446376 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsMichael Smith Health Research BCUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsDowntimeResilience (materials science)Medical recordPatient safetyPsychological resilienceHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this scoping review is to develop a model to understand the factors that influence clinical downtimes or clinical activities in a healthcare organization. To report on the results of searches preformed using seven bibliographic databases, using the logical search criteria of (downtime AND (EMR OR Electronic Medical Record OR EHR OR Electronic Health Record). After a title, abstract and full-text review 26 articles remained. The articles were coded and analyzed for themes. Downtime planning activities mitigate the effects of disasters on patient safety outcomes and clinical delays. A model was developed representing the relationships between disasters, the moderating variable of downtime planning activities and patient safety as well as clinical outcomes. Disasters can have significant impact on patients and health professionals. Downtime planning activities can be enacted when a disaster occurs to moderate the effects of the downtime on patients and clinical activities and can improve safety.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.373 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207