Electronic Health Records That Support Health Professional Reflective Practice: a Missed Opportunity in Digital Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A foundational component of digital health involves collecting and leveraging electronic health data to improve health and wellbeing. One of the central technologies for collecting these data are electronic health records (EHRs). In this commentary, the authors explore intersection between digital health and data-driven reflective practice that is described, including an overview of the role of EHRs underpinning technology innovation in healthcare. Subsequently, they argue that EHRs are a rich but under-utilised source of information on the performance of health professionals and healthcare teams that could be harnessed to support reflective practice and behaviour change. EHRs currently act as systems of data collection, not systems of data engagement and reflection by end users such as health professionals and healthcare organisations. Further consideration should be given to supporting reflective practice by health professionals in the design of EHRs and other clinical information systems.
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 | 0.028 | 0.114 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.033 | 0.034 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
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".