Electronic medical information systems and timeliness of care in the emergency department: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Although many emergency department (ED) settings have implemented an electronic medical information system (EMIS) and EMIS tools in an effort to improve timeliness of care outcomes, there remains a paucity of scientific information on this topic. We therefore performed a scoping review to describe the range of EMIS interventions and their impacts on time-based outcomes in the ED. Methods We searched four bibliographic databases to identify potentially relevant records published after 2014 in English. Two reviewers assessed records for eligibility using a two-step screening process. We then extracted data on the type of EMIS, outcomes assessed, and reported results. Findings were summarized in tabular form and grouped by time-based outcome. Results Twenty-five studies met the eligibility criteria, with approximately half being retrospective studies. Interventions varied among studies; they generally included a new or updated EMIS, EMIS tools related to disease diagnosis and/or management, triage tools, or health information exchange platforms. Included studies compared interventions with relevant comparator groups, such as prior versions of an EMIS, absence of an EMIS, pen-and-paper documentation, and/or communication via telephone and fax. The most common outcomes reported were length of stay (n = 17 studies) and time to medication (n = 6 studies), followed by time to order, time to provider, and time from result to disposition. Reported effects of the interventions were generally inconsistent, showing either improvements, delays, or no change in examined outcomes. Conclusions Additional research is needed to determine how electronic medical information may be used in the ED to improve timeliness of care. Findings from this review can be used to inform future systematic reviews that evaluate the impact of these systems and tools on specific quality of care measures.
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 | 0.149 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".