research-document DFR-EC4AAD63932E
Frontier analysis — Clinical Communication Engineering Evidence Registry — Clinical Communication Engineering / Evidence Registry / Clinical Communication Engineering Evidence Registry V1
Frontier analysis — Clinical Communication Engineering Evidence Registry — Clinical Communication Engineering / Evidence Registry / Clinical Communication Engineering Evidence Registry V1
Knowledge boundary
- Source: content/projects/clinical-communication-engineering/evidence-registry/clinical-communication-engineering-evidence-registry-v1.md
- Status: research-baseline
- Discipline: Human Factors
- Confidence: not explicitly stated
- Primary objective: purposes: - verify - reference audiences: - researcher
- Primary claims/evidence: This registry separates observations from design conclusions. Regulatory and standards sources establish constraints; empirical studies estimate effects; reviews describe the state of evidence. Transfer from one setting, specialty, user group, or medium is always a hypothesis until tested locally. ID Evidence and implication Strength Boundary or contradiction Source --- --- --- --- --- EV-CCE-001 The I-PASS bundle was associated with a 23% relative reduction in medical errors and 30% reduction …
- Methodology: - Human factors, NIST, FDA, and clinical-cognition research reinforce a joint system model: reader, task, environment, representation, and feedback must be tested together. - I-PASS and ONC reinforce closed-loop communication , but neither supports blindly applying one fixed sequence to all artifacts. - Risk-communication evidence favors absolute quantities plus graphics , while accessibility requires redundant non-color encoding. - Alert evidence contradicts the common assumption that greater …
- Limitations/known uncertainties: Evidence gaps: 1. Few head-to-head trials compare complete clinical-summary architectures on diagnostic accuracy and time. 2. Typography and spacing rules specific to clinical decisions have much weaker direct evidence than general legibility and accessi…
Five highest-value opportunities
| Rank | Record | Category | Frontier score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | RFR-AB5A9972 — Independent validation of the central claim | Validation | 493 |
| 2 | RFR-825E2F9E — Calibrate construct and measurement validity | Measurement | 492 |
| 3 | RFR-B7787973 — Test cross-population and cross-context transfer | Accessibility | 492 |
| 4 | RFR-9F1AD0BA — Map boundary conditions and failure regimes | Experimentation | 491 |
| 5 | RFR-ED7141D3 — Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold | Tooling | 392 |
Challenge and confidence decay
The source was challenged for construct validity, independent replication, boundary conditions, transfer, and comparative baselines. Confidence should decay when the source lacks a dated replication, when its technology or target population changes, or when later artifacts report contradictory findings. Revalidation is recommended before treating context-bound recommendations as universal.