Enhancing Standardized and Structured Recording by Elderly Care Physicians for Reusing Electronic Health Record Data: Interview Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Elderly care physicians (ECPs) in nursing homes document patients' health, medical conditions, and the care provided in electronic health records (EHRs). However, much of these health data currently lack structure and standardization, limiting their potential for health information exchange across care providers and reuse for quality improvement, policy development, and scientific research. Enhancing this potential requires insight into the attitudes and behaviors of ECPs toward standardized and structured recording in EHRs. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to answer why and how ECPs record their findings in EHRs and what factors influence them to record in a standardized and structured manner. The findings will be used to formulate recommendations aimed at enhancing standardized and structured data recording for the reuse of EHR data. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 13 ECPs working in Dutch nursing homes. We recruited participants through purposive sampling, aiming for diversity in age, gender, health care organization, and use of EHR systems. Interviews continued until we reached data saturation. Analysis was performed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: ECPs primarily use EHRs to document daily patient care, ensure continuity of care, and fulfill their obligation to record specific information for accountability purposes. The EHR serves as a record to justify their actions in the event of a complaint. In addition, some respondents also mentioned recording information for secondary purposes, such as research and quality improvement. Several factors were found to influence standardized and structured recording. At a personal level, it is crucial to experience the added value of standardized and structured recording. At the organizational level, clear internal guidelines and a focus on their implementation can have a substantial impact. At the level of the EHR system, user-friendliness, interoperability, and guidance were most frequently mentioned as being important. At a national level, the alignment of internal guidelines with overarching standards plays a pivotal role in encouraging standardized and structured recording. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study are similar to the findings of previous research in hospital care and general practice. Therefore, long-term care can learn from solutions regarding standardized and structured recording in other health care sectors. The main motives for ECPs to record in EHRs are the daily patient care and ensuring continuity of care. Standardized and structured recording can be improved by aligning the recording method in EHRs with the primary care process. In addition, there are incentives for motivating ECPs to record in a standardized and structured way, mainly at the personal, organizational, EHR system, and national levels.
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 | 0.018 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".