Evaluation of a Health Information Exchange System for Geriatric Health Care in Rural Areas: Development and Technical Acceptance Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients of geriatrics are often treated by several health care providers at the same time. The spatial, informational, and organizational separation of these health care providers can hinder the effective treatment of these patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop a regional health information exchange (HIE) system to improve HIE in geriatric treatment. This study also evaluated the usability of the regional HIE system and sought to identify barriers to and facilitators of its implementation. METHODS: The development of the regional HIE system followed the community-based participatory research approach. The primary outcomes were the usability of the regional HIE system, expected implementation barriers and facilitators, and the quality of the developmental process. Data were collected and analyzed using a mixed methods approach. RESULTS: A total of 3 focus regions were identified, 22 geriatric health care providers participated in the development of the regional HIE system, and 11 workshops were conducted between October 2019 and September 2020. In total, 12 participants responded to a questionnaire. The main results were that the regional HIE system should support the exchange of assessments, diagnoses, medication, assistive device supply, and social information. The regional HIE system was expected to be able to improve the quality and continuity of care. In total, 5 adoption facilitators were identified. The main points were adaptability of the regional HIE system to local needs, availability to different patient groups and treatment documents, web-based design, trust among the users, and computer literacy. A total of 13 barriers to adoption were identified. The main expected barriers to implementation were lack of resources, interoperability issues, computer illiteracy, lack of trust, privacy concerns, and ease-of-use issues. CONCLUSIONS: Participating health care professionals shared similar motivations for developing the regional HIE system, including improved quality of care, reduction of unnecessary examinations, and more effective health care provision. An overly complicated registration process for health care professionals and the patients' free choice of their health care providers hinder the effectiveness of the regional HIE system, resulting in incomplete patient health information. However, the web-based design of the system bridges interoperability problems that exist owing to the different technical and organizational structures of the health care facilities involved. The regional HIE system is better accepted by health care professionals who are already engaged in an interdisciplinary, geriatric-focused network. This might indicate that pre-existing cross-organizational structures and processes are prerequisites for using HIE systems. The participatory design supports the development of technologies that are adaptable to regional needs. Health care providers are interested in participating in the development of an HIE system, but they often lack the required time, knowledge, and resources.
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 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 | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".