An Optimization Program to Help Practices Assess Data Quality and Workflow With Their Electronic Medical Records: Observational Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Electronic medical record (EMR) adoption among Canadian primary care physicians continues to grow. In Ontario, >80% of primary care providers now use EMRs. Adopting an EMR does not guarantee better practice management or patient care; however, EMR users must understand how to effectively use it before they can realize its full benefit. OntarioMD developed an EMR Practice Enhancement Program (EPEP) to overcome challenges of clinicians and staff in finding time to learn a new technology or workflow. EPEP deploys practice consultants to work with clinicians onsite to harness their EMR toward practice management and patient care goals. OBJECTIVE This paper aims to illustrate the application of the EPEP approach to address practice-level factors that impede or enhance the effective use of EMRs to support patient outcomes and population health. The secondary objective is to draw attention to the potential impact of this practice-level work to population health (system-level), as priority population health indicators are addressed by quality improvement work at the practice-level. METHODS EPEP’s team of practice consultants work with clinicians to identify gaps in their knowledge of EMR functionality, analyze workflow, review EMR data quality, and develop action plans with achievable tasks. Consultants establish baselines for data quality in key clinical indicators and EMR proficiency using OntarioMD-developed maturity assessment tools. We reassessed and compared postengagement, data quality, and maturity. Three examples illustrating the EPEP approach and results are presented to illuminate strengths, limitations, and implications for further analysis. In each example, a different consultant was responsible for engaging with the practice to conduct the EPEP method. No standard timeframe exists for an EPEP engagement, as requirements differ from practice to practice, and EPEP tailors its approach and timeframe according to the needs of the practice. RESULTS After presenting findings of the initial data quality review, workflow, and gap analysis to the practice, consultants worked with practices to develop action plans and begin implementing recommendations. Each practice had different objectives in engaging the EPEP; here, we compared improvements across measures that were common priorities among all 3—screening (colorectal, cervical, and breast), diabetes diagnosis, and documentation of the smoking status. Consultants collected postengagement data at intervals (approximately 6, 12, and 18 months) to assess the sustainability of the changes. The postengagement assessment showed data quality improvements across several measures, and new confidence in their data enabled practices to implement more advanced functions (such as toolbars) and targeted initiatives for subpopulations of patients. CONCLUSIONS Applying on-site support to analyze gaps in EMR knowledge and use, identify efficiencies to improve workflow, and correct data quality issues can make dramatic improvements in a practice’s EMR proficiency, allowing practices to experience greater benefit from their EMR, and consequently, improve their patient care.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | medium |
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 | 0.016 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".