Alerts and Collections for Automating Patients’ Sensemaking and Organizing of Their Electronic Health Record Data for Reflection, Planning, and Clinical Visits: Qualitative Research-Through-Design Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electronic health record (EHR) data from multiple providers often exhibit important but convoluted and complex patterns that patients find hard and time-consuming to identify and interpret. However, existing patient-facing applications lack the capability to incorporate automatic pattern detection robustly and toward supporting making sense of the patient's EHR data. In addition, there is no means to organize EHR data in an efficient way that suits the patient's needs and makes them more actionable in real-life settings. These shortcomings often result in a skewed and incomplete picture of the patient's health status, which may lead to suboptimal decision-making and actions that put the patient at risk. OBJECTIVE: Our main goal was to investigate patients' attitudes, needs, and use scenarios with respect to automatic support for surfacing important patterns in their EHR data and providing means for organizing them that best suit patients' needs. METHODS: We conducted an inquisitive research-through-design study with 14 participants. Presented in the context of a cutting-edge application with strong emphasis on independent EHR data sensemaking, called Discovery, we used high-level mock-ups for the new features that were supposed to support automatic identification of important data patterns and offer recommendations-Alerts-and means for organizing the medical records based on patients' needs, much like photos in albums-Collections. The combined audio recording transcripts and in-study notes were analyzed using the reflexive thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: The Alerts and Collections can be used for raising awareness, reflection, planning, and especially evidence-based patient-provider communication. Moreover, patients desired carefully designed automatic pattern detection with safe and actionable recommendations, which produced a well-tailored and scoped landscape of alerts for both potential threats and positive progress. Furthermore, patients wanted to contribute their own data (eg, progress notes) and log feelings, daily observations, and measurements to enrich the meaning and enable easier sensemaking of the alerts and collections. On the basis of the findings, we renamed Alerts to Reports for a more neutral tone and offered design implications for contextualizing the reports more deeply for increased actionability; automatically generating the collections for more expedited and exhaustive organization of the EHR data; enabling patient-generated data input in various formats to support coarser organization, richer pattern detection, and learning from experience; and using the reports and collections for efficient, reliable, and common-ground patient-provider communication. CONCLUSIONS: Patients need to have a flexible and rich way to organize and annotate their EHR data; be introduced to insights from these data-both positive and negative; and share these artifacts with their physicians in clinical visits or via messaging for establishing shared mental models for clear goals, agreed-upon priorities, and feasible actions.
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 | 0.067 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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, 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".