Competing discourses, contested roles: Electronic health records in medical education

IF 4.9 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Daniel Huang, Cynthia Whitehead, Ayelet Kuper
{"title":"Competing discourses, contested roles: Electronic health records in medical education","authors":"Daniel Huang,&nbsp;Cynthia Whitehead,&nbsp;Ayelet Kuper","doi":"10.1111/medu.15428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>The integration of electronic health records (EHRs) into medical education remains contested despite their widespread use in clinical practice. For medical trainees, this has resulted in idiosyncratic and often ad hoc methods of instruction on EHR use. The purpose of this study was to understand the currently fragmented nature of EHR instruction by examining discourses of EHR use within the medical education literature.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a Foucauldian critical discourse analysis to identify discourses of EHRs in the medical education literature. We found our texts through a systematic search of widely cited medical education journals from 2013–2023. Each text was analysed for recurring truth statements—claims framed as self-evidently true and thus not needing supporting evidence—about the role of EHRs in medical education.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>We identified three major discourses: (1) EHRs as a clinical skill and competency, emphasising training of physical interactions between learners, patients and computers; (2) EHRs as a system, emphasising the creation and facilitation of networks of people, technologies, institutions and standards; and (3) EHRs as a cognitive process, framed as a method to shape processes like clinical reasoning and bias. Each discourse privileged certain stakeholders over others and served to rationalise educational interventions that could be seen as beneficial in isolation yet were often disjointed in combination.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Competing discourses of EHR use in medical education produce divergent interventions that exacerbate their contested role in contemporary medical education. Identifying different claims for the benefits of EHR use in these settings allows educators to make rational choices between competing educational directions.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18370,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education","volume":"58 12","pages":"1490-1501"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/medu.15428","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/medu.15428","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

The integration of electronic health records (EHRs) into medical education remains contested despite their widespread use in clinical practice. For medical trainees, this has resulted in idiosyncratic and often ad hoc methods of instruction on EHR use. The purpose of this study was to understand the currently fragmented nature of EHR instruction by examining discourses of EHR use within the medical education literature.

Methods

We conducted a Foucauldian critical discourse analysis to identify discourses of EHRs in the medical education literature. We found our texts through a systematic search of widely cited medical education journals from 2013–2023. Each text was analysed for recurring truth statements—claims framed as self-evidently true and thus not needing supporting evidence—about the role of EHRs in medical education.

Results

We identified three major discourses: (1) EHRs as a clinical skill and competency, emphasising training of physical interactions between learners, patients and computers; (2) EHRs as a system, emphasising the creation and facilitation of networks of people, technologies, institutions and standards; and (3) EHRs as a cognitive process, framed as a method to shape processes like clinical reasoning and bias. Each discourse privileged certain stakeholders over others and served to rationalise educational interventions that could be seen as beneficial in isolation yet were often disjointed in combination.

Conclusions

Competing discourses of EHR use in medical education produce divergent interventions that exacerbate their contested role in contemporary medical education. Identifying different claims for the benefits of EHR use in these settings allows educators to make rational choices between competing educational directions.

Abstract Image

相互竞争的话语,相互争夺的角色:医学教育中的电子病历。
导言:尽管电子健康记录(EHR)在临床实践中得到广泛应用,但将其纳入医学教育仍存在争议。对于医学学员来说,这导致了电子病历使用教学方法的特异性和临时性。本研究的目的是通过研究医学教育文献中关于电子病历使用的论述,了解电子病历教学目前支离破碎的性质:我们进行了福柯批判性话语分析,以确定医学教育文献中有关电子病历的话语。我们通过对 2013-2023 年间被广泛引用的医学教育期刊进行系统搜索,找到了相关文本。我们分析了每篇文章中反复出现的关于电子病历在医学教育中的作用的真理陈述--这些陈述不言而喻是真实的,因此不需要支持性证据:我们发现了三种主要论述:(1) 电子病历是一种临床技能和能力,强调对学习者、患者和计算机之间的实际互动进行培训;(2) 电子病历是一个系统,强调创建和促进人员、技术、机构和标准网络;(3) 电子病历是一个认知过程,是塑造临床推理和偏见等过程的一种方法。每种论述都使某些利益相关者享有优于其他利益相关者的特权,并使教育干预合理化,这些干预可以被看作是有益的,但结合在一起却往往是脱节的:结论:关于在医学教育中使用电子病历的相互竞争的论述产生了不同的干预措施,加剧了其在当代医学教育中的争议性作用。确定在这些环境中使用电子病历的不同好处,可使教育者在相互竞争的教育方向之间做出理性选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Education
Medical Education 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
279
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Education seeks to be the pre-eminent journal in the field of education for health care professionals, and publishes material of the highest quality, reflecting world wide or provocative issues and perspectives. The journal welcomes high quality papers on all aspects of health professional education including; -undergraduate education -postgraduate training -continuing professional development -interprofessional education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信