Megan E Gregory1, Elise Russo, Hardeep Singh. 1. Megan E. Gregory, Ph.D., Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine, 2450 Holcombe Blvd, Suite 01Y, Houston, Texas 77021, Email: megan.gregory@bcm.edu, Phone: (713) 794-8601 ext. 10232.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) have been shown to increase physician workload. One EHR feature that contributes to increased workload is asynchronous alerts (also known as inbox notifications) related to test results, referral responses, medication refill requests, and messages from physicians and other health care professionals. This alert-related workload results in negative cognitive outcomes, but its effect on affective outcomes, such as burnout, has been understudied. OBJECTIVES: To examine EHR alert-related workload (both objective and subjective) as a predictor of burnout in primary care providers (PCPs), in order to ultimately inform interventions aimed at reducing burnout due to alert workload. METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire and focus group of 16 PCPs at a large medical center in the southern United States. RESULTS: Subjective, but not objective, alert workload was related to two of the three dimensions of burnout, including physical fatigue (p = 0.02) and cognitive weariness (p = 0.04), when controlling for organizational tenure. To reduce alert workload and subsequent burnout, participants indicated a desire to have protected time for alert management, fewer unnecessary alerts, and improvements to the EHR system. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout associated with alert workload may be in part due to subjective differences at an individual level, and not solely a function of the objective work environment. This suggests the need for both individual and organizational-level interventions to improve alert workload and subsequent burnout. Additional research should confirm these findings in larger, more representative samples.
BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) have been shown to increase physician workload. One EHR feature that contributes to increased workload is asynchronous alerts (also known as inbox notifications) related to test results, referral responses, medication refill requests, and messages from physicians and other health care professionals. This alert-related workload results in negative cognitive outcomes, but its effect on affective outcomes, such as burnout, has been understudied. OBJECTIVES: To examine EHR alert-related workload (both objective and subjective) as a predictor of burnout in primary care providers (PCPs), in order to ultimately inform interventions aimed at reducing burnout due to alert workload. METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire and focus group of 16 PCPs at a large medical center in the southern United States. RESULTS: Subjective, but not objective, alert workload was related to two of the three dimensions of burnout, including physical fatigue (p = 0.02) and cognitive weariness (p = 0.04), when controlling for organizational tenure. To reduce alert workload and subsequent burnout, participants indicated a desire to have protected time for alert management, fewer unnecessary alerts, and improvements to the EHR system. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout associated with alert workload may be in part due to subjective differences at an individual level, and not solely a function of the objective work environment. This suggests the need for both individual and organizational-level interventions to improve alert workload and subsequent burnout. Additional research should confirm these findings in larger, more representative samples.
Entities:
Keywords:
Electronic health records; burnout; health information technology; safety; workload
Authors: Steven R Simon; Rainu Kaushal; Paul D Cleary; Chelsea A Jenter; Lynn A Volk; Eric G Poon; E John Orav; Helen G Lo; Deborah H Williams; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2006-10-26 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Tait D Shanafelt; Sonja Boone; Litjen Tan; Lotte N Dyrbye; Wayne Sotile; Daniel Satele; Colin P West; Jeff Sloan; Michael R Oreskovich Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2012-10-08
Authors: Hardeep Singh; Lindsey Wilson; Brian Reis; Mona K Sawhney; Donna Espadas; Dean F Sittig Journal: J Patient Saf Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 2.844
Authors: Tait D Shanafelt; Lotte N Dyrbye; Christine Sinsky; Omar Hasan; Daniel Satele; Jeff Sloan; Colin P West Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2016-06-27 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Daniel R Murphy; Tyler Satterly; Traber D Giardina; Dean F Sittig; Hardeep Singh Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-07-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Zoe Co; A Jay Holmgren; David C Classen; Lisa Newmark; Diane L Seger; Melissa Danforth; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Pierre Elias; Eric Peterson; Bob Wachter; Cary Ward; Eric Poon; Ann Marie Navar Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Marilyn M Schapira; William E Barlow; Emily F Conant; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Tracy Onega; Elisabeth F Beaber; Martha Goodrich; Anne Marie McCarthy; Sally D Herschorn; Celette Sugg Skinner; Tory O Harrington; Berta Geller Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Anastasia Pozdnyakova; Neda Laiteerapong; Anna Volerman; Lauren D Feld; Wen Wan; Deborah L Burnet; Wei Wei Lee Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Mustafa I Hussain; Ariana M Nelson; Brent G Yeung; Lauren Sukumar; Kai Zheng Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Ekaterina Anderson; Amanda K Solch; B Graeme Fincke; Mark Meterko; Jolie B Wormwood; Varsha G Vimalananda Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 5.128