Rubina F Rizvi1, Kathleen A Harder2, Gretchen M Hultman1, Terrence J Adam3, Michael Kim4, Serguei V S Pakhomov3, Genevieve B Melton5. 1. Institute for Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States. 2. Institute for Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States; Center for Design in Health, College of Design, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States. 3. Institute for Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States; College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States. 4. Pediatric Hospital Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States. 5. Institute for Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States; Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States. Electronic address: gmelton@umn.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to understand physicians' usage of inpatient notes by (i) ascertaining different clinical note-entry and reading/retrieval styles in two different and widely used Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems, (ii) extrapolating potential factors leading to adoption of various note-entry and reading/retrieval styles and (iii) determining the amount of time to task associated with documenting different types of clinical notes. METHODS: In order to answer "what" and "why" questions on physicians' adoption of certain-note-entry and reading/retrieval styles, an ethnographic study entailing Internal Medicine residents, with a mixed data analysis approach was performed. Participants were observed interacting with two different EHR systems in inpatient settings. Data was collected around the use and creation of History and Physical (H&P) notes, progress notes and discharge summaries. RESULTS: The highest variability in template styles was observed with progress notes and the least variability was within discharge summaries, while note-writing styles were most consistent for H&P notes. The first sections to be read in a H&P and progress note were the Chief Complaint and Assessment & Plan sections, respectively. The greatest note retrieval variability, with respect to the order of how note sections were reviewed, was observed with H&P and progress notes. Physician preference for adopting a certain reading/retrieval order appeared to be a function of what best fits their workflow while fulfilling the stimulus demands. The time spent entering H&P, discharge summaries and progress notes were similar in both EHRs. CONCLUSION: This research study unveils existing variability in clinical documentation processes and provides us with important information that could help in designing a next generation EHR Graphical User Interface (GUI) that is more congruent with physicians' mental models, task performance needs, and workflow requirements.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to understand physicians' usage of inpatient notes by (i) ascertaining different clinical note-entry and reading/retrieval styles in two different and widely used Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems, (ii) extrapolating potential factors leading to adoption of various note-entry and reading/retrieval styles and (iii) determining the amount of time to task associated with documenting different types of clinical notes. METHODS: In order to answer "what" and "why" questions on physicians' adoption of certain-note-entry and reading/retrieval styles, an ethnographic study entailing Internal Medicine residents, with a mixed data analysis approach was performed. Participants were observed interacting with two different EHR systems in inpatient settings. Data was collected around the use and creation of History and Physical (H&P) notes, progress notes and discharge summaries. RESULTS: The highest variability in template styles was observed with progress notes and the least variability was within discharge summaries, while note-writing styles were most consistent for H&P notes. The first sections to be read in a H&P and progress note were the Chief Complaint and Assessment & Plan sections, respectively. The greatest note retrieval variability, with respect to the order of how note sections were reviewed, was observed with H&P and progress notes. Physician preference for adopting a certain reading/retrieval order appeared to be a function of what best fits their workflow while fulfilling the stimulus demands. The time spent entering H&P, discharge summaries and progress notes were similar in both EHRs. CONCLUSION: This research study unveils existing variability in clinical documentation processes and provides us with important information that could help in designing a next generation EHR Graphical User Interface (GUI) that is more congruent with physicians' mental models, task performance needs, and workflow requirements.
Keywords:
Clinical documentation; Electronic health records systems (EHR); Graphical User Interface (GUI); Human-Computer Interaction (HCI); Qualitative analysis; Usability
Authors: Mark W Friedberg; Peggy G Chen; Kristin R Van Busum; Frances Aunon; Chau Pham; John Caloyeras; Soeren Mattke; Emma Pitchforth; Denise D Quigley; Robert H Brook; F Jay Crosson; Michael Tutty Journal: Rand Health Q Date: 2014-12-01
Authors: Ken Monahan; Cheng Ye; Edward Gould; Meng Xu; Shi Huang; Anderson Spickard; S Trent Rosenbloom; Joseph Coco; Daniel Fabbri; Bonnie Miller Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-07-03 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Victoria Y Vivtcharenko; Sonali Ramesh; Kimberly C Dukes; Hardeep Singh; Loreen A Herwaldt; Heather Schacht Reisinger; Christina L Cifra Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 3.624
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
Authors: Jimmy S Chen; Michelle R Hribar; Isaac H Goldstein; Adam Rule; Wei-Chun Lin; Haley Dusek; Michael F Chiang Journal: JAMIA Open Date: 2021-07-31