Incorporating human factors methods into the configuration and implementation of an electronic health record system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems can help to improve patient safety by reducing common errors, but they can also introduce new safety risks associated with the technology itself. The application of Human Factor (HF) methods in an EHR implementation project is critical to identify usability issues early and optimize the build to ensure safety, efficiency, and alignment with clinical workflows. Despite the benefits, inclusion of HF evaluations can have time and resource costs which must be accounted for in the overall project plans and timelines. Based on our experiences with a large-scale EHR implementation project, this article outlines recommendations on how to incorporate HF evaluation methods into EHR design. Over the 7-year roll-out, the HF team had the opportunity to engage with over 400 clinical end users in 30 usability evaluations across the EHR project, which yielded over 2,000 recommendations for improvement to address usability issues.
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 | 0.094 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".