BACKGROUND: Accurate patient problem lists are valuable tools for improving the quality of care, enabling clinical decision support, and facilitating research and quality measurement. However, problem lists are frequently inaccurate and out-of-date and use varies widely across providers. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to assess provider use of an electronic problem list and identify differences in usage between medical specialties. DESIGN: Chart review of a random sample of 100,000 patients who had received care in the past two years at a Boston-based academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Counts were collected of all notes and problems added for each patient from 1/1/2002 to 4/30/2010. For each entry, the recording provider and the clinic in which the entry was recorded was collected. We used the Healthcare Provider Taxonomy Code Set to categorize each clinic by specialty. MAIN MEASURES: We analyzed the problem list use across specialties, controlling for note volume as a proxy for visits. KEY RESULTS: A total of 2,264,051 notes and 158,105 problems were recorded in the electronic medical record for this population during the study period. Primary care providers added 82.3% of all problems, despite writing only 40.4% of all notes. Of all patients, 49.1% had an assigned primary care provider (PCP) affiliated with the hospital; patients with a PCP had an average of 4.7 documented problems compared to 1.5 problems for patients without a PCP. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care providers were responsible for the majority of problem documentation; surgical and medical specialists and subspecialists recorded a disproportionately small number of problems on the problem list.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Accurate patient problem lists are valuable tools for improving the quality of care, enabling clinical decision support, and facilitating research and quality measurement. However, problem lists are frequently inaccurate and out-of-date and use varies widely across providers. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to assess provider use of an electronic problem list and identify differences in usage between medical specialties. DESIGN: Chart review of a random sample of 100,000 patients who had received care in the past two years at a Boston-based academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Counts were collected of all notes and problems added for each patient from 1/1/2002 to 4/30/2010. For each entry, the recording provider and the clinic in which the entry was recorded was collected. We used the Healthcare Provider Taxonomy Code Set to categorize each clinic by specialty. MAIN MEASURES: We analyzed the problem list use across specialties, controlling for note volume as a proxy for visits. KEY RESULTS: A total of 2,264,051 notes and 158,105 problems were recorded in the electronic medical record for this population during the study period. Primary care providers added 82.3% of all problems, despite writing only 40.4% of all notes. Of all patients, 49.1% had an assigned primary care provider (PCP) affiliated with the hospital; patients with a PCP had an average of 4.7 documented problems compared to 1.5 problems for patients without a PCP. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care providers were responsible for the majority of problem documentation; surgical and medical specialists and subspecialists recorded a disproportionately small number of problems on the problem list.
Authors: Raeanna Bonetti; Joe Castelli; Jennifer L Childress; Joan Cohen; Lisa Hanson; Maribeth Hernan; Teonna Ingram; Daniel A Kowalczyk; Mary Lambert; Melanie Loucks; Katherine Maddox; Sue Mitchell; Deborah Neville; Susan Penders; Clarice P Smith; Sharon Sprenger; Kimberly Suggs; Anne Tegen; Patricia S Wilson Journal: J AHIMA Date: 2008-01
Authors: Eric G Poon; Adam Wright; Steven R Simon; Chelsea A Jenter; Rainu Kaushal; Lynn A Volk; Paul D Cleary; Janice A Singer; Alexis Z Tumolo; David W Bates Journal: Med Care Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Adam Wright; Justine Pang; Joshua C Feblowitz; Francine L Maloney; Allison R Wilcox; Harley Z Ramelson; Louise I Schneider; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-05-25 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Daniel M Hartung; Jacquelyn Hunt; Joseph Siemienczuk; Heather Miller; Daniel R Touchette Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: C K McMullen; J S Ash; D F Sittig; A Bunce; K Guappone; R Dykstra; J Carpenter; J Richardson; A Wright Journal: Methods Inf Med Date: 2010-12-20 Impact factor: 2.176
Authors: Herbert C Szeto; Robert K Coleman; Parisa Gholami; Brian B Hoffman; Mary K Goldstein Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Adam Wright; Elizabeth A McGlinchey; Eric G Poon; Chelsea A Jenter; David W Bates; Steven R Simon Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2009-08-10 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Ann S O'Malley; Eugene C Rich; Alyssa Maccarone; Catherine M DesRoches; Robert J Reid Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Ron C Li; Trit Garg; Tony Cun; Lisa Shieh; Gomathi Krishnan; Daniel Fang; Jonathan H Chen Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Ashimiyu B Durojaiye; Nicolette McGerorge; Webster Kristen; Cagla Oruc; James C Fackler; Ayse P Gurses Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-12-05
Authors: Stacey E Jolly; Sankar D Navaneethan; Jesse D Schold; Susana Arrigain; John W Sharp; Anil K Jain; Martin J Schreiber; James F Simon; Joseph V Nally Journal: Am J Nephrol Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 3.754
Authors: Bat-Zion Hose; Peter L T Hoonakker; Abigail R Wooldridge; Thomas B Brazelton Iii; Shannon M Dean; Ben Eithun; James C Fackler; Ayse P Gurses; Michelle M Kelly; Jonathan E Kohler; Nicolette M McGeorge; Joshua C Ross; Deborah A Rusy; Pascale Carayon Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Anuj K Dalal; Patricia C Dykes; Sarah Collins; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; Kumiko Ohashi; Ronen Rozenblum; Diana Stade; Kelly McNally; Constance R C Morrison; Sucheta Ravindran; Eli Mlaver; John Hanna; Frank Chang; Ravali Kandala; George Getty; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-08-02 Impact factor: 4.497