Literature DB >> 29854247

What are they trying to do?: An analysis of Action Identities in using electronic documentation in an EHR.

Charlene R Weir1, Catherine Staes1, Stacey Slager1, Teresa Taft1, Valiammai Chidambaram1, Heidi Kramer1, Bruce E Bray1, Seneca Perri Moore1.   

Abstract

Documentation processes have changed substantially with EHR adoption. User satisfaction studies have focused on usability or cognitive analysis perspectives. Few studies have provided useful information to developers to improve designs. The purpose of this study is to report a 3-pronged approach to deepen understanding of the documentation process, with the intent to provide useful information for future design. This study was conducted in two phases, beginning with cognitive task interviews and observations, followed by post-observation interviews. Twenty-five constructs were identified across the phases, and we observed several patterns of note writing. Participants provided useful information to potentially inform future design. Our study illustrates how electronic documentation serves many clinical processes and is at the core of the medical record. Providers need multiple kinds of notes and ways to display notes. In order to meet provider goals, we must completely re-think the way electronic documentation is composed and displayed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29854247      PMCID: PMC5977632     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc        ISSN: 1559-4076


  21 in total

1.  The critical incident technique.

Authors:  J C FLANAGAN
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1954-07       Impact factor: 17.737

2.  A piece of my mind. Copy-and-paste.

Authors:  Robert E Hirschtick
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-05-24       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Critical issues in an electronic documentation system.

Authors:  Charlene R Weir; Jonathan R Nebeker
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2007-10-11

4.  The physical attractiveness of electronic physician notes.

Authors:  Thomas H Payne; Rupa Patel; Sally Beahan; Jacquie Zehner
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2010-11-13

5.  Initial Steps toward Validating and Measuring the Quality of Computerized Provider Documentation.

Authors:  Kenric W Hammond; Efthimis N Efthimiadis; Charlene R Weir; Peter J Embi; Stephen M Thielke; Ryan M Laundry; Ashley Hedeen
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2010-11-13

6.  Time spent on clinical documentation: a survey of internal medicine residents and program directors.

Authors:  Amy S Oxentenko; Colin P West; Carol Popkave; Steven E Weinberger; Joseph C Kolars
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2010-02-22

7.  Higher-complexity ED billing codes--sicker patients, more intensive practice, or improper payments?

Authors:  Stephen R Pitts
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-12-27       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 8.  Where's the beef? The promise and the reality of clinical documentation.

Authors:  Steven J Davidson; Frank L Zwemer; Larry A Nathanson; Kenneth N Sable; Abu N G A Khan
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 3.451

9.  Improving the electronic health record--are clinicians getting what they wished for?

Authors:  James J Cimino
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2013-03-13       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Direct text entry in electronic progress notes. An evaluation of input errors.

Authors:  C R Weir; J F Hurdle; M A Felgar; J M Hoffman; B Roth; J R Nebeker
Journal:  Methods Inf Med       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.176

View more
  2 in total

1.  Diagnosis Documentation of Critically Ill Children at Admission to a PICU.

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

2.  Implementing Best Practices to Redesign Workflow and Optimize Nursing Documentation in the Electronic Health Record.

Authors:  Mary R Lindsay; Kay Lytle
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2022-06-03       Impact factor: 2.762

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.