An Approach to Potentially Increasing Adoption of an Artificial Intelligence–Enabled Electronic Medical Record Encounter in Canadian Primary Care: Protocol for a User-Centered Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary care physicians are at the forefront of the clinical process that can lead to diagnosis, referral, and treatment. With electronic medical records (EMRs) being introduced and, over time, gaining acceptance by primary care users, they have now become a standard part of care. EMRs have the potential to be further optimized with the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI). There has yet to be a widespread exploration of the use of AI in primary health care and how clinicians envision AI use to encourage further uptake. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this research is to understand if the user-centered design approach, rooted in contextual design, can lead to an increased likelihood of adoption of an AI-enabled encounter module embedded in a primary care EMR. In this study, we use human factor models and the technology acceptance model to understand the results. METHODS: To accomplish this, a partnership has been established with an industry partner, TELUS Health, to use their EMR, the collaborative health record. The overall intention is to understand how to improve the user experience by using user-centered design to inform how AI should be embedded in an EMR encounter. Given this intention, a user-centered approach will be used to accomplish it. The approach of user-centered design requires qualitative interviewing to gain a clear understanding of users' approaches, intentions, and other key insights to inform the design process. A total of 5 phases have been designed for this study. RESULTS: As of March 2024, a total of 14 primary care clinician participants have been recruited and interviewed. First-cycle coding of all qualitative data results is being conducted to inform redesign considerations. CONCLUSIONS: Some limitations need to be acknowledged related to the approach of this study. There is a lack of market maturity of AI-enabled EMR encounters in primary care, requiring research to take place through scenario-based interviews. However, this participant group will still help inform design considerations for this tool. This study is targeted for completion in the late fall of 2024. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/54365.
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 | 0.162 | 0.144 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.005 |
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".