Electronic Health Records as an Instrument to Potentially Optimize the Work Flow in Small Medical Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This master thesis contributes to a growing body of literature analysing electronic health records (EHRs) and their importance to potentially optimization of the work flow in small medical practices. Additionally, general information about different health care systems is given, especially about the Canadian health care system. It gives a theoretical overview of information technologies used through health care providers. This thesis addresses the new technologies for communication and describes them. Problem: The "lack of clear channels of communication in patient transfer between care facilities leads to fragmentation in care." To prevent this, new communication channels need to be more effective in improving communication. Before trying to enhance communication channels used between care facilities, locally and nationally, the current focus needs to be on communication channels used within care facilities. This is of great importance especially for patients and other stakeholders who deem it as the most critical health care item. The slow implementation of EHRs in small medical practices makes it difficult to improve and evaluate performance and to ensure the confidence of patients in new technologies. On the other hand, the lack of implementation in this area has a negative effect on other health care providers, e.g. hospitals which already implemented the system. Through the existing gap the delivery of health care information is not complete possible and does not help to make the system safer for users. Research Question: The main goal is to obtain an understanding of individual physicians' attitudes and barriers to EHR. The thesis will show the advantages and obstacles as well as the pros and cons for small- and medium-sized practices to adopt EHRs. Result: It is not necessary anymore to discuss if EHRs should be implemented. It is more important to discuss how they should implement. The main problem for implementation is the financial barrier for small medical practices as well as personal attitudes connected with the age distribution of physicians and patients.
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 | 0.020 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".