Milisa K Rizer1, Cynthia Sieck2, Jennifer S Lehman2, Jennifer L Hefner2, Timothy R Huerta3, Ann Scheck McAlearney4. 1. Departments of Family Medicine and Biomedical Informatics in the College of Medicine of The Ohio State University and chief medical information officer of the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, OH. 2. Department of Family Medicine in the College of Medicine of The Ohio State University in Columbus, OH. 3. Departments of Family Medicine and Biomedical Informatics in the College of Medicine of The Ohio State University in Columbus, OH. 4. Department of Family Medicine in the College of Medicine of The Ohio State University and research director for the Central Ohio Practice-Based Research Network in Columbus, OH.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess patient perceptions of electronic medical record (EMR) intrusiveness during ambulatory visits to clinics associated with a large academic medical center. METHOD: We conducted a survey of patients seen at any of 98 academic medical center clinics. The survey assessed demographics, visit satisfaction, computer use, and perceived intrusiveness of the computer. RESULTS: Of 7,058 patients, slightly more than 80 percent reported that the physician had used the computer while in the room, but only 24 percent were shown results in the EMR. Most patients were very satisfied or satisfied with their visit and did not find the computer intrusive (83 percent). Younger respondents, those shown results, and those who reported that the physician used the computer were more likely to perceive the computer as intrusive. Qualitative comments suggest different perceptions related to computer intrusiveness than to EMR use more generally. DISCUSSION: Patients were generally accepting of EMRs and therefore use of computers in the exam room. However, subgroups of patients may require greater study to better understand patient perceptions related to EMR use and intrusiveness. CONCLUSION: Results suggest the need for greater focus on how physicians use computers in the exam room in a manner that facilitates maintaining good rapport with patients.
OBJECTIVE: To assess patient perceptions of electronic medical record (EMR) intrusiveness during ambulatory visits to clinics associated with a large academic medical center. METHOD: We conducted a survey of patients seen at any of 98 academic medical center clinics. The survey assessed demographics, visit satisfaction, computer use, and perceived intrusiveness of the computer. RESULTS: Of 7,058 patients, slightly more than 80 percent reported that the physician had used the computer while in the room, but only 24 percent were shown results in the EMR. Most patients were very satisfied or satisfied with their visit and did not find the computer intrusive (83 percent). Younger respondents, those shown results, and those who reported that the physician used the computer were more likely to perceive the computer as intrusive. Qualitative comments suggest different perceptions related to computer intrusiveness than to EMR use more generally. DISCUSSION: Patients were generally accepting of EMRs and therefore use of computers in the exam room. However, subgroups of patients may require greater study to better understand patient perceptions related to EMR use and intrusiveness. CONCLUSION: Results suggest the need for greater focus on how physicians use computers in the exam room in a manner that facilitates maintaining good rapport with patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
academic medical center; ambulatory; electronic medical records; medical education; patient assessment
Authors: Melinda Beeuwkes Buntin; Matthew F Burke; Michael C Hoaglin; David Blumenthal Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Christina E Milano; Joseph A Hardman; Adeline Plesiu; Rebecca E Rdesinski; Frances E Biagioli Journal: Acad Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Richard Frankel; Andrea Altschuler; Sheba George; James Kinsman; Holly Jimison; Nan R Robertson; John Hsu Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Bruce L Rollman; Barbara H Hanusa; Henry J Lowe; Trae Gilbert; Wishwa N Kapoor; Herbert C Schulberg Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Richard L Street; Lin Liu; Neil J Farber; Yunan Chen; Alan Calvitti; Danielle Zuest; Mark T Gabuzda; Kristin Bell; Barbara Gray; Steven Rick; Shazia Ashfaq; Zia Agha Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2014-05-14
Authors: Sally L Baxter; Helena E Gali; Michael F Chiang; Michelle R Hribar; Lucila Ohno-Machado; Robert El-Kareh; Abigail E Huang; Heather E Chen; Andrew S Camp; Don O Kikkawa; Bobby S Korn; Jeffrey E Lee; Christopher A Longhurst; Marlene Millen Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2020-02-19 Impact factor: 2.342