Frameworks for Integrating Learning Analytics With the Electronic Health Record
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The information systems designed to support clinical care have evolved separately from those that support health professions education. This has resulted in a considerable digital divide between patient care and education, one that poorly serves practitioners and organizations, even as learning becomes ever more important to both. In this perspective, we advocate for the enhancement of existing health information systems so that they intentionally facilitate learning. We describe three well-regarded frameworks for learning that can point toward how health care information systems can best evolve to support learning. The Master Adaptive Learner model suggests ways that the individual practitioner can best organize their activities to ensure continual self-improvement. The PDSA cycle similarly proposes actions for improvement but at a health care organization's workflow level. Senge's Five Disciplines of the Learning Organization, a more general framework from the business literature, serves to further inform how disparate information and knowledge flows can be managed for continual improvement. Our main thesis holds that these types of learning frameworks should inform the design and integration of information systems serving the health professions. An underutilized mediator of educational improvement is the ubiquitous electronic health record. The authors list learning analytic opportunities, including potential modifications of learning management systems and the electronic health record, that would enhance health professions education and support the shared goal of delivering high-quality evidence-based health 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
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 | 0.042 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".