MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402953911 · doi:10.2196/58498

Implementation of the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Model in Electronic Medical Record Systems: Evaluation Study Using Factor Analysis and Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory-Best-Worst Methods

2024· article· en· W4402953911 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. Luo, Yu Gu, Feilong Zhou, S. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyGeneral partnershipElectronic medical recordQuality (philosophy)Medical recordHealth careElectronic health recordComputer scienceObservational methods in psychologyMedicineMedical emergencyProcess managementData scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Electronic medical record (EMR) systems are essential in health care for collecting and storing patient medical data. They provide critical information to doctors and caregivers, facilitating improved decision-making and patient care. Despite their significance, optimizing EMR systems is crucial for enhancing health care quality. Implementing the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) shared data model represents a promising approach to improve EMR performance and overall health care outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effects of implementing the OMOP shared data model in EMR systems and to assess its impact on enhancing health care quality. METHODS: In this study, 3 distinct methodologies are used to explore various aspects of health care information systems. First, factor analysis is utilized to investigate the correlations between EMR systems and attitudes toward OMOP. Second, the best-worst method (BWM) is applied to determine the weights of criteria and subcriteria. Lastly, the decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory technique is used to illustrate the interactions and interdependencies among the identified criteria. RESULTS: In this research, we evaluated the AliHealth EMR system by surveying 98 users and practitioners to assess its effectiveness and user satisfaction. The study reveals that among all components, "EMR resolution" holds the highest importance with a weight of 0.31007783, highlighting its significant role in the evaluation. Conversely, "EMR ease of use" has the lowest weight of 0.1860467, indicating that stakeholders prioritize the resolution aspect over ease of use in their assessment of EMR systems. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight that stakeholders prioritize certain aspects of EMR systems, with "EMR resolution" being the most valued component.

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)0.139
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.139
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1390.139
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.273
GPT teacher head0.626
Teacher spread0.353 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207