Header Logo

Connection

Co-Authors

Back to Details
This is a "connection" page, showing publications co-authored by HARDEEP SINGH and DANIEL MURPHY.
HARDEEP SINGH
Connection Strength
14.326
DANIEL MURPHY
  1. An electronic trigger to detect telemedicine-related diagnostic errors. J Telemed Telecare. 2024 Apr 01; 1357633X241236570.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.923
  2. Developing electronic clinical quality measures to assess the cancer diagnostic process. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2023 08 18; 30(9):1526-1531.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.884
  3. Dashboards for visual display of patient safety data: a systematic review. BMJ Health Care Inform. 2021 Oct; 28(1).
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.776
  4. An Exploration of Barriers, Facilitators, and Suggestions for Improving Electronic Health Record Inbox-Related Usability: A Qualitative Analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 10 02; 2(10):e1912638.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.676
  5. Practicing Clinicians' Recommendations to Reduce Burden from the Electronic Health Record Inbox: a Mixed-Methods Study. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 09; 34(9):1825-1832.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.665
  6. Barriers and facilitators impacting reliability of the electronic health record-facilitated total testing process. Int J Med Inform. 2019 07; 127:102-108.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.653
  7. Application of electronic trigger tools to identify targets for improving diagnostic safety. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 02; 28(2):151-159.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.631
  8. Electronic Triggers to Identify Delays in Follow-Up of Mammography: Harnessing the Power of Big Data in Health?Care. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018 02; 15(2):287-295.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.592
  9. Development and Validation of Trigger Algorithms to Identify Delays in Diagnostic Evaluation of Gastroenterological Cancer. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Jan; 16(1):90-98.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.582
  10. Application of Electronic Algorithms to Improve Diagnostic Evaluation for Bladder Cancer. Appl Clin Inform. 2017 03 22; 8(1):279-290.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.567
  11. Electronic Health Records Quantify Previously Existing Phenomenon-Physicians Spend Hours Coordinating Care-Reply. JAMA Intern Med. 2016 08 01; 176(8):1235-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.542
  12. Computerized Triggers of Big Data to Detect?Delays in Follow-up of Chest Imaging?Results. Chest. 2016 09; 150(3):613-20.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.534
  13. The Burden of Inbox Notifications in Commercial Electronic Health Records. JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Apr; 176(4):559-60.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.530
  14. Electronic Trigger-Based Intervention to Reduce Delays in Diagnostic Evaluation for Cancer: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Nov 01; 33(31):3560-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.508
  15. Development and Validation of Electronic Health Record-based Triggers to Detect Delays in Follow-up of Abnormal Lung Imaging Findings. Radiology. 2015 Oct; 277(1):81-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.498
  16. Electronic health record-based triggers to detect potential delays in cancer diagnosis. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014 Jan; 23(1):8-16.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.440
  17. Electronic health record-based messages to primary care providers: valuable information or just noise? Arch Intern Med. 2012 Feb 13; 172(3):283-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.398
  18. Notifications received by primary care practitioners in electronic health records: a taxonomy and time analysis. Am J Med. 2012 Feb; 125(2):209.e1-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.397
  19. Revisions to the Safety Assurance Factors for Electronic Health Record Resilience (SAFER) Guides to update national recommendations for safe use of electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2025 Apr 01; 32(4):755-760.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.247
  20. Implementation of Electronic Triggers to Identify Diagnostic Errors in Emergency Departments. JAMA Intern Med. 2025 Feb 01; 185(2):143-151.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.245
  21. A Virtual Breakthrough Series Collaborative for Missed Test Results: A Stepped-Wedge Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Oct 01; 7(10):e2440269.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.239
  22. Development and Implementation of a Digital Quality Measure of Emergency Cancer Diagnosis. J Clin Oncol. 2024 Jul 20; 42(21):2506-2515.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.232
  23. Medical Home Implementation and Follow-Up of Cancer-Related Abnormal Test Results in the Veterans Health Administration. JAMA Netw Open. 2024 03 04; 7(3):e240087.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.229
  24. Cancer Evaluations During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Observational Study Using National Veterans Affairs Data. Am J Prev Med. 2022 12; 63(6):1026-1030.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.206
  25. Electronic Health Records' Support for Primary Care Physicians' Situation Awareness: A Metanarrative Review. Hum Factors. 2023 Mar; 65(2):237-259.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.189
  26. Why Test Results Are Still Getting "Lost" to Follow-up: a Qualitative Study of Implementation Gaps. J Gen Intern Med. 2022 01; 37(1):137-144.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.188
  27. Application of Human Factors Methods to Understand Missed Follow-up of Abnormal Test Results. Appl Clin Inform. 2020 10; 11(5):692-698.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.182
  28. Diagnostic evaluation of patients presenting with hematuria: An electronic health record-based study. Urol Oncol. 2018 03; 36(3):88.e19-88.e25.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.148
  29. Errors in Diagnosis of Spinal Epidural Abscesses in the Era of Electronic Health Records. Am J Med. 2017 08; 130(8):975-981.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.142
  30. Electronic Detection of Delayed Test Result Follow-Up in Patients with Hypothyroidism. J Gen Intern Med. 2017 Jul; 32(7):753-759.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.140
  31. Challenges in patient safety improvement research in the era of electronic health records. Healthc (Amst). 2016 Dec; 4(4):285-290.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.135
  32. Communicating Findings of Delayed Diagnostic Evaluation to Primary Care Providers. J Am Board Fam Med. 2016 Jul-Aug; 29(4):469-73.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.135
  33. Graphical display of diagnostic test results in electronic health records: a comparison of 8 systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015 Jul; 22(4):900-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.123
  34. Communication breakdowns and diagnostic errors: a radiology perspective. Diagnosis (Berl). 2014 12; 1(4):253-261.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.118
  35. Breakdowns in communication of radiological findings: an ethical and medico-legal conundrum. Diagnosis (Berl). 2014 12; 1(4):263-268.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.118
  36. Resilient actions in the diagnostic process and system performance. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Dec; 22(12):1006-13.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.109
  37. Primary care practitioners' views on test result management in EHR-enabled health systems: a national survey. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013 Jul-Aug; 20(4):727-35.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.106
  38. Follow-up actions on electronic referral communication in a multispecialty outpatient setting. J Gen Intern Med. 2011 Jan; 26(1):64-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.090
  39. Interventions to improve timely cancer diagnosis: an integrative review. Diagnosis (Berl). 2024 Oct 18.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.060
  40. Translating electronic health record-based patient safety algorithms from research to clinical practice at multiple sites. BMJ Health Care Inform. 2022 Jul; 29(1).
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.051
  41. Variation in high-priority drug-drug interaction alerts across institutions and electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 03 01; 24(2):331-338.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.035
  42. Workarounds and Test Results Follow-up in Electronic Health Record-Based Primary Care. Appl Clin Inform. 2016; 7(2):543-59.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.034
  43. Improving the effectiveness of electronic health record-based referral processes. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012 Sep 13; 12:107.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.026
Connection Strength

The connection strength for concepts is the sum of the scores for each matching publication.

Publication scores are based on many factors, including how long ago they were written and whether the person is a first or senior author.