Perspectives of undergraduate and graduate medical trainees on documenting clinical notes: Implications for medical education and informatics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ensuring the accuracy of unstructured clinical notes is critical for patient care, research, and quality improvement. Understanding how trainees learn to document these notes and the challenges they encounter are important steps to developing educational and informatics solutions.Authors conducted focus groups to gather the perspectives of 40 medical students (MS) and family and emergency medicine (EM) residents on recording clinical notes in the electronic medical record (EMR). Focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed.Thematic analysis with a deductive approach revealed: a lack of formal education, a shift from information gathering to documenting clinical reasoning with seniority, and barriers to charting development, including variable preceptor expectations and EMR design constraints.Participating trainees report gaps in education around the documentation of notes in the EMR. Future work should explore opportunities to reduce gaps, including more formal education, the creation of specific competencies, and improvements to the EMR.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it