P J Brown1, J L Marquard2, B Amster2, M Romoser2, J Friderici3, S Goff3, D Fisher2. 1. Division of Clinical Informatics, Baystate Health , Springfield, MA, USA. 2. College of Engineering, University of Massachusetts Amherst , Amherst, MA, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Baystate Health , Springfield, MA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Several studies have documented the preference for physicians to attend to the impression and plan section of a clinical document. However, it is not clear how much attention other sections of a document receive. The goal of this study was to identify how physicians distribute their visual attention while reading electronic notes. METHODS: We used an eye-tracking device to assess the visual attention patterns of ten hospitalists as they read three electronic notes. The assessment included time spent reading specific sections of a note as well as rates of reading. This visual analysis was compared with the content of simulated verbal handoffs for each note and debriefing interviews. RESULTS: Study participants spent the most time in the "Impression and Plan" section of electronic notes and read this section very slowly. Sections such as the "Medication Profile", "Vital Signs" and "Laboratory Results" received less attention and were read very quickly even if they contained more content than the impression and plan. Only 9% of the content of physicians' verbal handoff was found outside of the "Impression and Plan." CONCLUSION: Physicians in this study directed very little attention to medication lists, vital signs or laboratory results compared with the impression and plan section of electronic notes. Optimizing the design of electronic notes may include rethinking the amount and format of imported patient data as this data appears to largely be ignored.
OBJECTIVE: Several studies have documented the preference for physicians to attend to the impression and plan section of a clinical document. However, it is not clear how much attention other sections of a document receive. The goal of this study was to identify how physicians distribute their visual attention while reading electronic notes. METHODS: We used an eye-tracking device to assess the visual attention patterns of ten hospitalists as they read three electronic notes. The assessment included time spent reading specific sections of a note as well as rates of reading. This visual analysis was compared with the content of simulated verbal handoffs for each note and debriefing interviews. RESULTS: Study participants spent the most time in the "Impression and Plan" section of electronic notes and read this section very slowly. Sections such as the "Medication Profile", "Vital Signs" and "Laboratory Results" received less attention and were read very quickly even if they contained more content than the impression and plan. Only 9% of the content of physicians' verbal handoff was found outside of the "Impression and Plan." CONCLUSION: Physicians in this study directed very little attention to medication lists, vital signs or laboratory results compared with the impression and plan section of electronic notes. Optimizing the design of electronic notes may include rethinking the amount and format of imported patient data as this data appears to largely be ignored.
Entities:
Keywords:
Electronic health records; attention; documentation; humans; information seeking behavior
Authors: Jolt Roukema; Renske K Los; Sacha E Bleeker; Astrid M van Ginneken; Johan van der Lei; Henriette A Moll Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: S Trent Rosenbloom; Joshua C Denny; Hua Xu; Nancy Lorenzi; William W Stead; Kevin B Johnson Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-01-12 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Rubina F Rizvi; Kathleen A Harder; Gretchen M Hultman; Terrence J Adam; Michael Kim; Serguei V S Pakhomov; Genevieve B Melton Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2016-03-02 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Abigail E Huang; Michelle R Hribar; Isaac H Goldstein; Brad Henriksen; Wei-Chun Lin; Michael F Chiang Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-12-05
Authors: Jeremy A Epstein; Joseph Cofrancesco; Mary Catherine Beach; Amanda Bertram; Helene F Hedian; Sara Mixter; Hsin-Chieh Yeh; Gail Berkenblit Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-09-08 Impact factor: 5.128