BACKGROUND: Scribes are assisting Emergency Physicians by writing their electronic clinical notes at the bedside during consultations. They increase physician productivity and improve their working conditions. The quality of Emergency scribe notes is unevaluated and important to determine. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of the study was to determine if the quality of Emergency Department scribe notes was equivalent to physician only notes, using the Physician Documentation Quality Instrument, Nine-item tool (PDQI-9). METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational study comparing 110 scribed to 110 non-scribed Emergency Physician notes written at Cabrini Emergency Department, Australia. Consultations during a randomised controlled trial of scribe/doctor productivity in 2016 were used. Emergency physicians and nurses rated randomly selected, blinded and de-identified notes, 2 raters per note. Comparisons were made between paired scribed and unscribed notes and between raters of each note. Characteristics of individual raters were examined. The ability of the tool to discriminate between good and poor notes was tested. RESULTS: The PDQI-9 tool has significant issues. Individual items had good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.93), but there was very poor agreement between raters (Pearson's r=0.07, p=0.270). There were substantial differences in PDQI-9 scores allocated by each rater, with some giving typically lower scores than others, F(25,206)=1.93, p=0.007. The tool was unable to distinguish good from poor notes, F(3,34)=1.15, p=0.342. There was no difference in PDQI-9 score between scribed and non-scribed notes. CONCLUSIONS: The PDQI-9 documentation quality tool did not demonstrate reliability or validity in evaluating Emergency Medicine consultation notes. We found no evidence that scribed notes were of poorer quality than non-scribed notes, however Emergency scribe note quality has not yet been determined.
BACKGROUND: Scribes are assisting Emergency Physicians by writing their electronic clinical notes at the bedside during consultations. They increase physician productivity and improve their working conditions. The quality of Emergency scribe notes is unevaluated and important to determine. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of the study was to determine if the quality of Emergency Department scribe notes was equivalent to physician only notes, using the Physician Documentation Quality Instrument, Nine-item tool (PDQI-9). METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational study comparing 110 scribed to 110 non-scribed Emergency Physician notes written at Cabrini Emergency Department, Australia. Consultations during a randomised controlled trial of scribe/doctor productivity in 2016 were used. Emergency physicians and nurses rated randomly selected, blinded and de-identified notes, 2 raters per note. Comparisons were made between paired scribed and unscribed notes and between raters of each note. Characteristics of individual raters were examined. The ability of the tool to discriminate between good and poor notes was tested. RESULTS: The PDQI-9 tool has significant issues. Individual items had good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.93), but there was very poor agreement between raters (Pearson's r=0.07, p=0.270). There were substantial differences in PDQI-9 scores allocated by each rater, with some giving typically lower scores than others, F(25,206)=1.93, p=0.007. The tool was unable to distinguish good from poor notes, F(3,34)=1.15, p=0.342. There was no difference in PDQI-9 score between scribed and non-scribed notes. CONCLUSIONS: The PDQI-9 documentation quality tool did not demonstrate reliability or validity in evaluating Emergency Medicine consultation notes. We found no evidence that scribed notes were of poorer quality than non-scribed notes, however Emergency scribe note quality has not yet been determined.
Authors: Aveh Bastani; Blerina Shaqiri; Kristen Palomba; Dominic Bananno; William Anderson Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2014-03-15 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Anita D Misra-Hebert; Linda Amah; Andrew Rabovsky; Shannon Morrison; Marven Cantave; Bo Hu; Christine A Sinsky; Michael B Rothberg Journal: J Fam Pract Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 0.493
Authors: Jeremy J Hess; Joshua Wallenstein; Jeremy D Ackerman; Murtaza Akhter; Douglas Ander; Matthew T Keadey; James P Capes Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2015-10-20
Authors: Sarah T Florig; Sky Corby; Nicholas T Rosson; Tanuj Devara; Nicole G Weiskopf; Jeffrey A Gold; Vishnu Mohan Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2022-02-21
Authors: Tom Ebbers; Rudolf B Kool; Ludi E Smeele; Richard Dirven; Chrisje A den Besten; Luc H E Karssemakers; Tim Verhoeven; Jasmijn M Herruer; Guido B van den Broek; Robert P Takes Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2022-05-27 Impact factor: 4.920
Authors: Katherine Walker; Michael Ben-Meir; William Dunlop; Rachel Rosler; Adam West; Gabrielle O'Connor; Thomas Chan; Diana Badcock; Mark Putland; Kim Hansen; Carmel Crock; Danny Liew; David Taylor; Margaret Staples Journal: BMJ Date: 2019-01-30