Development of Quality Indicators for the Correct Use of Electronic Medical Records in Primary Care: Modified Delphi Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: When used correctly, electronic medical records (EMRs) can support clinical decision-making, provide information for research, facilitate coordination of care, reduce medical errors, and generate patient health summaries. Studies have reported large differences in the quality of EMR data. OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to develop an evidence-based set of electronically extractable quality indicators (QIs) approved by expert consensus to assess the good use of EMRs by general practitioners (GPs) from a medical perspective. METHODS: The RAND-modified Delphi method was used in this study. The TRIP and MEDLINE databases were searched, and a selection of recommendations was filtered using the specific, measurable, assignable, realistic, and time-bound principles. The panel comprised 12 GPs and 6 EMR developers. The selected recommendations were transformed into QIs as percentages. RESULTS: A combined list of 20 indicators and 30 recommendations was created from 9 guidelines and 4 review articles. After the consensus round, 20 (100%) indicators and 20 (67%) recommendations were approved by the panel. All 20 recommendations were transformed into QIs. Most (16, 40%) QIs evaluated the completeness and adequacy of the problem list. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided a set of 40 EMR-extractable QIs for the correct use of EMRs in primary care. These QIs can be used to map the completeness of EMRs by setting up an audit and feedback system, and to develop specific (computer-based) training for GPs.
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 | 0.179 | 0.209 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".