Jennifer A Bierman1, Kathryn Kinner Hufmeyer2, David T Liss2, A Charlotta Weaver2, Heather L Heiman3. 1. a Departments of Medicine and Medical Education , Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine , Chicago , Illinois , USA. 2. b Department of Medicine , Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine , Chicago , Illinois , USA. 3. c Departments of Medicine and Medical Education , Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine , Chicago , Illinois , USA.
Abstract
Construct: We aimed to develop an instrument to measure the quality of inpatient electronic health record- (EHR-) generated progress notes without requiring raters to review the detailed chart or know the patient. BACKGROUND: Notes written in EHRs have generated criticism for being unnecessarily long and redundant, perpetuating inaccuracy and obscuring providers' clinical reasoning. Available assessment tools either focus on outpatient progress notes or require chart review by raters to develop familiarity with the patient. APPROACH: We used medical literature, local expert review, and attending focus groups to develop and refine an instrument to evaluate inpatient progress notes. We measured interrater reliability and scored the selected-response elements of the checklist for a sample of 100 progress notes written by PGY-1 trainees on the general medicine service. RESULTS: We developed an instrument with 18 selected-response items and four open-ended items to measure the quality of inpatient progress notes written in the EHR. The mean Cohen's kappa coefficient demonstrated good agreement at .67. The mean note score was 66.9% of maximum possible points (SD = 10.6, range = 34.4%-93.3%). CONCLUSIONS: We present validity evidence in the domains of content, internal structure, and response process for a new checklist for rating inpatient progress notes. The scored checklist can be completed in approximately 7 minutes by a rater who is not familiar with the patient and can be done without extensive chart review. We further demonstrate that trainee notes show substantial room for improvement.
Construct: We aimed to develop an instrument to measure the quality of inpatient electronic health record- (EHR-) generated progress notes without requiring raters to review the detailed chart or know the patient. BACKGROUND: Notes written in EHRs have generated criticism for being unnecessarily long and redundant, perpetuating inaccuracy and obscuring providers' clinical reasoning. Available assessment tools either focus on outpatient progress notes or require chart review by raters to develop familiarity with the patient. APPROACH: We used medical literature, local expert review, and attending focus groups to develop and refine an instrument to evaluate inpatient progress notes. We measured interrater reliability and scored the selected-response elements of the checklist for a sample of 100 progress notes written by PGY-1 trainees on the general medicine service. RESULTS: We developed an instrument with 18 selected-response items and four open-ended items to measure the quality of inpatient progress notes written in the EHR. The mean Cohen's kappa coefficient demonstrated good agreement at .67. The mean note score was 66.9% of maximum possible points (SD = 10.6, range = 34.4%-93.3%). CONCLUSIONS: We present validity evidence in the domains of content, internal structure, and response process for a new checklist for rating inpatient progress notes. The scored checklist can be completed in approximately 7 minutes by a rater who is not familiar with the patient and can be done without extensive chart review. We further demonstrate that trainee notes show substantial room for improvement.
Authors: Emily Cole; Nita G Valikodath; April Maa; R V Paul Chan; Michael F Chiang; Aaron Y Lee; Daniel C Tu; Thomas S Hwang Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2020-12-24 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Danielle E Weber; Justin D Held; Roman A Jandarov; Matthew Kelleher; Ben Kinnear; Dana Sall; Jennifer K O'Toole Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-01-28 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Verity Schaye; Benedict Guzman; Jesse Burk-Rafel; Marina Marin; Ilan Reinstein; David Kudlowitz; Louis Miller; Jonathan Chun; Yindalon Aphinyanaphongs Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Verity Schaye; Louis Miller; David Kudlowitz; Jonathan Chun; Jesse Burk-Rafel; Patrick Cocks; Benedict Guzman; Yindalon Aphinyanaphongs; Marina Marin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: H Stephen Injeyan; Sheilah Hogg-Johnson; Sean Abdulla; Ngai Chow; Jocelyn Cox; Anthony Ridding; Craig Jacobs Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-07-28 Impact factor: 2.655