MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386271775 · doi:10.1007/s43678-023-00576-1

Medico-legal issues related to emergency physicians’ documentation in Canadian emergency departments

2023· article· en· W4386271775 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeffrey D. Smith, Karen Lemay, Shirley Lee, Janet Nuth, Jun Ji, Kim Montague, Gary Garber

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Emergency Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaCanadian Medical Protective Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationMedicineEmergency departmentMedical emergencyHealth careMEDLINECriticismMedical recordFamily medicineNursingLawSurgeryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Physician documentation plays a central role in the delivery of safe patient care. It describes a physician's clinical decision-making and supports essential communication between healthcare providers within the patient's circle of care. Good documentation can potentially also decrease a physician's medico-legal risk. This study provides examples of documentation issues attributed to physicians practicing emergency medicine as identified by peer experts in civil legal actions, regulatory authority complaints (College) and hospital complaints (collectively, medico-legal cases) in Canada. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive study and content analysis of medico-legal cases involving emergency department physicians from a national repository at the Canadian Medical Protective Association. Cases with peer expert criticism of an emergency physician's documentation, which were closed between 2016 and 2020, and occurred in an emergency department were included in our analysis. RESULTS: Of the 1628 cases involving emergency medicine, our inclusion criteria identified that absent or insufficiently detailed documentation was present in 24% of cases (391/1,628). A detailed review of 20% of the cases (79/391), selected randomly, found that documentation issues were most often associated with the assessment and investigation stage of care. This pertained to documenting details of the clinical examination, relevant medical history, diagnosis, and differential diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: For physicians practicing emergency medicine, criticism of documentation was frequently observed in medico-legal cases. Based on the findings of this study and the expert criticism related to documentation, emergency medicine physicians may consider reflecting upon their documentation of the care provided to determine if their documentation provides a clear and accurate chronicle of the care and the rationale for their clinical decisions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.116
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.116
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.385 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Emergency MedicineSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207