A Novel Electronic Record System for Documentation and Efficient Workflow for Community Health Workers: Development and Usability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic added to the decades of evidence that public health institutions are routinely stretched beyond their capacity. Community health workers (CHWs) can be a crucial extension of public health resources to address health inequities, but systems to document CHW efforts are often fragmented and prone to unneeded redundancy, errors, and inefficiency. OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop a more efficient data collection system for recording the wide range of community-based efforts performed by CHWs. METHODS: The Communities Organizing to Promote Equity (COPE) project is an initiative to address health disparities across Kansas, in part, through the deployment of CHWs. Our team iteratively designed and refined the features of a novel data collection system for CHWs. Pilot tests with CHWs occurred over several months to ensure that the functionality supported their daily use. Following implementation of the database, procedures were set to sustain the collection of feedback from CHWs, community partners, and organizations with similar systems to continually modify the database to meet the needs of users. A continuous quality improvement process was conducted monthly to evaluate CHW performance; feedback was exchanged at team and individual levels regarding the continuous quality improvement results and opportunities for improvement. Further, a 15-item feedback survey was distributed to all 33 COPE CHWs and supervisors for assessing the feasibility of database features, accessibility, and overall satisfaction. RESULTS: At launch, the database had 60 active users in 20 counties. Documented client interactions begin with needs assessments (modified versions of the Arizona Self-sufficiency Matrix and PRAPARE [Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patient Assets, Risks, and Experiences]) and continue with the longitudinal tracking of progress toward goals. A user-specific automated alerts-based dashboard displays clients needing follow-up and upcoming events. The database contains over 55,000 documented encounters across more than 5079 clients. Available resources from over 2500 community organizations have been documented. Survey data indicated that 84% (27/32) of the respondents considered the overall navigation of the database as very easy. The majority of the respondents indicated they were overall very satisfied (14/32, 44%) or satisfied (15/32, 48%) with the database. Open-ended responses indicated the database features, documentation of community organizations and visual confirmation of consent form and data storage on a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant record system, improved client engagement, enrollment processes, and identification of resources. CONCLUSIONS: Our database extends beyond conventional electronic medical records and provides flexibility for ever-changing needs. The COPE database provides real-world data on CHW accomplishments, thereby improving the uniformity of data collection to enhance monitoring and evaluation. This database can serve as a model for community-based documentation systems and be adapted for use in other community settings.
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 | 0.043 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".