Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31245565›Full record

ArticleLearning health systems2017

The forgetting health system.

Enrico Coiera

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Learning health systems, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Physician extenders on surgical services: the need for a systems perspective.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie · 2018
    Article
  6. The forgetting health system.Learning health systems · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Enrico CoieraCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation Macquarie University Sydney Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionForgetting shapes learning in two different ways. It impedes learning when important lessons are forgotten. Equally, it can be difficult to enact new lessons if we do not let go of old beliefs and practices that are no longer useful. A learning health system (LHS) that wishes to improve health service delivery will need to find ways to remember processes that shape quality and safety - using data that often resides beyond electronic health records. An LHS will also need to "forget", or programmatically decommission, obsolete practices, whose persistence otherwise leads to unnecessary system complexity and inertia to change. DISCUSSION: New forms of data needed to improve health services include process metrics extracted from digital systems; human-level metrics that capture workflow patterns and clinician behaviors; and multivariate process patterns that can identify service "syndromes." To avoid inertia to change, system complexity must be reduced by retiring (or forgetting) inefficient or unhelpful work practices. Biological models of programmed cell death provide a rich set of mechanisms to decommission elements of health services. These models suggest health service elements should be able to detect the end of their useful life and should contain internal mechanisms to orchestrate decommissioning-in contrast to current service decommissioning, which is an externally initiated, top-down down-driven process.

conclusionsAn LHS should take advantage of digital infrastructure to bring together people, sensors, analytics, and quasi-autonomous mechanisms for service adaptation. By drawing inspiration from biology, we can design LHSs that do not just remember but also actively forget.

Indexed as

apoptosisclinical inertiacomplexitydecommissioningstandards

Identifiers

PMID31245565
PMCPMC6508563

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.