Edward R Melnick1, Liselotte N Dyrbye2, Christine A Sinsky3, Mickey Trockel4, Colin P West5, Laurence Nedelec6, Michael A Tutty3, Tait Shanafelt6. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT. Electronic address: edward.melnick@yale.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 3. Professional Satisfaction and Practice Sustainability, American Medical Association, Chicago, IL. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA. 5. Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 6. Department of Medicine, Stanford School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe and benchmark physician-perceived electronic health record (EHR) usability as defined by a standardized metric of technology usability and evaluate the association with professional burnout among physicians. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional survey of US physicians from all specialty disciplines was conducted between October 12, 2017, and March 15, 2018, using the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. Among the 30,456 invited physicians, 5197 (17.1%) completed surveys. A random 25% (n=1250) of respondents in the primary survey received a subsurvey evaluating EHR usability, and 870 (69.6%) completed it. EHR usability was assessed using the System Usability Scale (SUS; range 0-100). SUS scores were normalized to percentile rankings across more than 1300 previous studies from other industries. Burnout was measured using the Maslach Burnout Inventory. RESULTS: Mean ± SD SUS score was 45.9±21.9. A score of 45.9 is in the bottom 9% of scores across previous studies and categorized in the "not acceptable" range or with a grade of F. On multivariate analysis adjusting for age, sex, medical specialty, practice setting, hours worked, and number of nights on call weekly, physician-rated EHR usability was independently associated with the odds of burnout with each 1 point more favorable SUS score associated with a 3% lower odds of burnout (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.97-0.98; P<.001). CONCLUSION: The usability of current EHR systems received a grade of F by physician users when evaluated using a standardized metric of technology usability. A strong dose-response relationship between EHR usability and the odds of burnout was observed.
OBJECTIVE: To describe and benchmark physician-perceived electronic health record (EHR) usability as defined by a standardized metric of technology usability and evaluate the association with professional burnout among physicians. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional survey of US physicians from all specialty disciplines was conducted between October 12, 2017, and March 15, 2018, using the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. Among the 30,456 invited physicians, 5197 (17.1%) completed surveys. A random 25% (n=1250) of respondents in the primary survey received a subsurvey evaluating EHR usability, and 870 (69.6%) completed it. EHR usability was assessed using the System Usability Scale (SUS; range 0-100). SUS scores were normalized to percentile rankings across more than 1300 previous studies from other industries. Burnout was measured using the Maslach Burnout Inventory. RESULTS: Mean ± SD SUS score was 45.9±21.9. A score of 45.9 is in the bottom 9% of scores across previous studies and categorized in the "not acceptable" range or with a grade of F. On multivariate analysis adjusting for age, sex, medical specialty, practice setting, hours worked, and number of nights on call weekly, physician-rated EHR usability was independently associated with the odds of burnout with each 1 point more favorable SUS score associated with a 3% lower odds of burnout (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.97-0.98; P<.001). CONCLUSION: The usability of current EHR systems received a grade of F by physician users when evaluated using a standardized metric of technology usability. A strong dose-response relationship between EHR usability and the odds of burnout was observed.
Authors: Thomas T Joseph; David B Wax; Raymond Goldstein; Jia Huang; Patrick J McCormick; Matthew A Levin Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Robert P Pierce; Bernie R Eskridge; LeAnn Rehard; Brandi Ross; Margaret A Day; Jeffery L Belden Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Alan H Morris; Brian Stagg; Michael Lanspa; James Orme; Terry P Clemmer; Lindell K Weaver; Frank Thomas; Colin K Grissom; Ellie Hirshberg; Thomas D East; Carrie Jane Wallace; Michael P Young; Dean F Sittig; Antonio Pesenti; Michela Bombino; Eduardo Beck; Katherine A Sward; Charlene Weir; Shobha S Phansalkar; Gordon R Bernard; B Taylor Thompson; Roy Brower; Jonathon D Truwit; Jay Steingrub; R Duncan Hite; Douglas F Willson; Jerry J Zimmerman; Vinay M Nadkarni; Adrienne Randolph; Martha A Q Curley; Christopher J L Newth; Jacques Lacroix; Michael S D Agus; Kang H Lee; Bennett P deBoisblanc; R Scott Evans; Dean K Sorenson; Anthony Wong; Michael V Boland; David W Grainger; Willard H Dere; Alan S Crandall; Julio C Facelli; Stanley M Huff; Peter J Haug; Ulrike Pielmeier; Stephen E Rees; Dan S Karbing; Steen Andreassen; Eddy Fan; Roberta M Goldring; Kenneth I Berger; Beno W Oppenheimer; E Wesley Ely; Ognjen Gajic; Brian Pickering; David A Schoenfeld; Irena Tocino; Russell S Gonnering; Peter J Pronovost; Lucy A Savitz; Didier Dreyfuss; Arthur S Slutsky; James D Crapo; Derek Angus; Michael R Pinsky; Brent James; Donald Berwick Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-06-12 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jeritt G Thayer; Daria F Ferro; Jeffrey M Miller; Dean Karavite; Robert W Grundmeier; Levon Utidjian; Joseph J Zorc Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 4.497