Pranita Mishra1, Jacqueline C Kiang2, Richard W Grant1. 1. Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland. 2. Oakland Medical Center, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland.
Abstract
Importance: Widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) in medical care has resulted in increased physician documentation workload and decreased interaction with patients. Despite the increasing use of medical scribes for EHR documentation assistance, few methodologically rigorous studies have examined the use of medical scribes in primary care. Objective: To evaluate the association of use of medical scribes with primary care physician (PCP) workflow and patient experience. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 12-month crossover study with 2 sequences and 4 periods was conducted from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017, in 2 medical center facilities within an integrated health care system and included 18 of 24 eligible PCPs. Interventions: The PCPs were randomly assigned to start the first 3-month period with or without scribes and then alternated exposure status every 3 months for 1 year, thereby serving as their own controls. The PCPs completed a 6-question survey at the end of each study period. Patients of participating PCPs were surveyed after scribed clinic visits. Main Outcomes and Measures: PCP-reported perceptions of documentation burden and visit interactions, objective measures of time spent on EHR activity and required for closing encounters, and patient-reported perceptions of visit quality. Results: Of the 18 participating PCPs, 10 were women, 12 were internal medicine physicians, and 6 were family practice physicians. The PCPs graduated from medical school a mean (SD) of 13.7 (6.5) years before the study start date. Compared with nonscribed periods, scribed periods were associated with less self-reported after-hours EHR documentation (<1 hour daily during week: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 18.0 [95% CI, 4.7-69.0]; <1 hour daily during weekend: aOR, 8.7; 95% CI, 2.7-28.7). Scribed periods were also associated with higher likelihood of PCP-reported spending more than 75% of the visit interacting with the patient (aOR, 295.0; 95% CI, 19.7 to >900) and less than 25% of the visit on a computer (aOR, 31.5; 95% CI, 7.3-136.4). Encounter documentation was more likely to be completed by the end of the next business day during scribed periods (aOR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.2-7.1). A total of 450 of 735 patients (61.2%) reported that scribes had a positive bearing on their visits; only 2.4% reported a negative bearing. Conclusions and Relevance: Medical scribes were associated with decreased physician EHR documentation burden, improved work efficiency, and improved visit interactions. Our results support the use of medical scribes as one strategy for improving physician workflow and visit quality in primary care.
RCT Entities:
Importance: Widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) in medical care has resulted in increased physician documentation workload and decreased interaction with patients. Despite the increasing use of medical scribes for EHR documentation assistance, few methodologically rigorous studies have examined the use of medical scribes in primary care. Objective: To evaluate the association of use of medical scribes with primary care physician (PCP) workflow and patient experience. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 12-month crossover study with 2 sequences and 4 periods was conducted from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017, in 2 medical center facilities within an integrated health care system and included 18 of 24 eligible PCPs. Interventions: The PCPs were randomly assigned to start the first 3-month period with or without scribes and then alternated exposure status every 3 months for 1 year, thereby serving as their own controls. The PCPs completed a 6-question survey at the end of each study period. Patients of participating PCPs were surveyed after scribed clinic visits. Main Outcomes and Measures: PCP-reported perceptions of documentation burden and visit interactions, objective measures of time spent on EHR activity and required for closing encounters, and patient-reported perceptions of visit quality. Results: Of the 18 participating PCPs, 10 were women, 12 were internal medicine physicians, and 6 were family practice physicians. The PCPs graduated from medical school a mean (SD) of 13.7 (6.5) years before the study start date. Compared with nonscribed periods, scribed periods were associated with less self-reported after-hours EHR documentation (<1 hour daily during week: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 18.0 [95% CI, 4.7-69.0]; <1 hour daily during weekend: aOR, 8.7; 95% CI, 2.7-28.7). Scribed periods were also associated with higher likelihood of PCP-reported spending more than 75% of the visit interacting with the patient (aOR, 295.0; 95% CI, 19.7 to >900) and less than 25% of the visit on a computer (aOR, 31.5; 95% CI, 7.3-136.4). Encounter documentation was more likely to be completed by the end of the next business day during scribed periods (aOR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.2-7.1). A total of 450 of 735 patients (61.2%) reported that scribes had a positive bearing on their visits; only 2.4% reported a negative bearing. Conclusions and Relevance: Medical scribes were associated with decreased physician EHR documentation burden, improved work efficiency, and improved visit interactions. Our results support the use of medical scribes as one strategy for improving physician workflow and visit quality in primary care.
Authors: Jayna M Holroyd-Leduc; Diane Lorenzetti; Sharon E Straus; Lindsay Sykes; Hude Quan Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-06-09 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: Andrew J Karter; Howard H Moffet; Jennifer Liu; Melissa M Parker; Ameena T Ahmed; Assiamira Ferrara; Joe V Selby Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Maria I Danila; Joshua A Melnick; Jeffrey R Curtis; Nir Menachemi; Kenneth G Saag Journal: J Clin Rheumatol Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 3.517
Authors: Heather A Heaton; Ana Castaneda-Guarderas; Elliott R Trotter; Patricia J Erwin; M Fernanda Bellolio Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 2.469
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: Christine Sinsky; Lacey Colligan; Ling Li; Mirela Prgomet; Sam Reynolds; Lindsey Goeders; Johanna Westbrook; Michael Tutty; George Blike Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-09-06 Impact factor: 25.391
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
Authors: Sky Corby; Jeffrey A Gold; Vishnu Mohan; Nicholas Solberg; James Becton; Robby Bergstrom; Benjamin Orwoll; Christopher Hoekstra; Joan S Ash Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2020-03-04
Authors: Elizabeth R Pfoh; Sandra Hong; Laura Baranek; Michael B Rothberg; Sarah Beinkampen; Anita D Misra-Hebert; Susan J Rehm; Andrea L Sikon Journal: Med Care Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Tina Shah; Andrea Borondy Kitts; Jeffrey A Gold; Keith Horvath; Alex Ommaya; Opelka Frank; Luke Sato; Gretchen Schwarze; Mark Upton; Lew Sandy Journal: NAM Perspect Date: 2020-08-03
Authors: Sky Corby; Keaton Whittaker; Joan S Ash; Vishnu Mohan; James Becton; Nicholas Solberg; Robby Bergstrom; Benjamin Orwoll; Christopher Hoekstra; Jeffrey A Gold Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2021-06-29 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Anastasia Pozdnyakova Piersa; Neda Laiteerapong; Sandra A Ham; Felipe Fernandez Del Castillo; Sachin Shah; Deborah L Burnet; Wei Wei Lee Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-07-11 Impact factor: 2.655