Towards a Regulatory Framework for Workflow Improvement in Electronic Medical Records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physicians have to complete several time-consuming and burnout-inducing tasks in their EMRs for everyday care of patients. Poor workflow design generates increased effort for physicians. In this study, we measure time doctors take to retrieve and review information in the patient chart at the beginning of a visit; one of approximately 12 tasks a doctor must do in the EMR during the visit. Information retrieval takes approximately 40 minutes per day. Automation could save 75% of that time. We estimate that if every family doctor in Canada could save 30 minutes through automation of just this one process, we could free up time equivalent to >3000 physicians and >5 million patients; enough to absorb the vast majority of patients who currently do not have a doctor. We know of no more powerful intervention than workflow automation in Canadian EMRs to increase the supply of doctors while simultaneously reducing a major cause of burnout. We recommend an accelerated research program to identify additional opportunities for workflow automation and a regulatory program to ensure that every physician has access to workflow automation in their EMR.
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 | 0.346 | 0.252 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".