Brian D Tran1,2, Kathryn Rosenbaum2, Kai Zheng1,3. 1. Department of Informatics, Donald Bren School of Informatics and Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, California, USA. 2. School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, California, USA. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, California, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To understand how medical scribes' work may contribute to alleviating clinician burnout attributable directly or indirectly to the use of health IT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews with 32 participants who had scribing experience in a variety of clinical settings. RESULTS: We identified 7 categories of clinical tasks that clinicians commonly choose to offload to medical scribes, many of which involve delegated use of health IT. These range from notes-taking and computerized data entry to foraging, assembling, and tracking information scattered across multiple clinical information systems. Some common characteristics shared among these tasks include: (1) time-consuming to perform; (2) difficult to remember or keep track of; (3) disruptive to clinical workflow, clinicians' cognitive processes, or patient-provider interactions; (4) perceived to be low-skill "clerical" work; and (5) deemed as adding no value to direct patient care. DISCUSSION: The fact that clinicians opt to "outsource" certain clinical tasks to medical scribes is a strong indication that performing these tasks is not perceived to be the best use of their time. Given that a vast majority of healthcare practices in the US do not have the luxury of affording medical scribes, the burden would inevitably fall onto clinicians' shoulders, which could be a major source for clinician burnout. CONCLUSIONS: Medical scribes help to offload a substantial amount of burden from clinicians-particularly with tasks that involve onerous interactions with health IT. Developing a better understanding of medical scribes' work provides useful insights into the sources of clinician burnout and potential solutions to it.
OBJECTIVES: To understand how medical scribes' work may contribute to alleviating clinician burnout attributable directly or indirectly to the use of health IT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews with 32 participants who had scribing experience in a variety of clinical settings. RESULTS: We identified 7 categories of clinical tasks that clinicians commonly choose to offload to medical scribes, many of which involve delegated use of health IT. These range from notes-taking and computerized data entry to foraging, assembling, and tracking information scattered across multiple clinical information systems. Some common characteristics shared among these tasks include: (1) time-consuming to perform; (2) difficult to remember or keep track of; (3) disruptive to clinical workflow, clinicians' cognitive processes, or patient-provider interactions; (4) perceived to be low-skill "clerical" work; and (5) deemed as adding no value to direct patient care. DISCUSSION: The fact that clinicians opt to "outsource" certain clinical tasks to medical scribes is a strong indication that performing these tasks is not perceived to be the best use of their time. Given that a vast majority of healthcare practices in the US do not have the luxury of affording medical scribes, the burden would inevitably fall onto clinicians' shoulders, which could be a major source for clinician burnout. CONCLUSIONS: Medical scribes help to offload a substantial amount of burden from clinicians-particularly with tasks that involve onerous interactions with health IT. Developing a better understanding of medical scribes' work provides useful insights into the sources of clinician burnout and potential solutions to it.
Keywords:
documentation [L01.453.245]; electronic health records [E05.318.308.940.968.625.500]; health information technology; medical scribe; professional burnout [C24.580.500]; workflow [L01.906.893]
Authors: Richard L Street; Lin Liu; Neil J Farber; Yunan Chen; Alan Calvitti; Nadir Weibel; Mark T Gabuzda; Kristin Bell; Barbara Gray; Steven Rick; Shazia Ashfaq; Zia Agha Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-11-29 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Rebekah L Gardner; Emily Cooper; Jacqueline Haskell; Daniel A Harris; Sara Poplau; Philip J Kroth; Mark Linzer Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Katherine J Walker; Will Dunlop; Danny Liew; Margaret P Staples; Matt Johnson; Michael Ben-Meir; Hamish Gordon Rodda; Ian Turner; David Phillips Journal: Emerg Med J Date: 2016-06-28 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Heather A Heaton; David M Nestler; Derick D Jones; Rachelen S Varghese; Christine M Lohse; Eric S Williamson; Annie T Sadosty Journal: J Emerg Med Date: 2016-12-14 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: Sunny S Lou; Daphne Lew; Derek R Harford; Chenyang Lu; Bradley A Evanoff; Jennifer G Duncan; Thomas Kannampallil Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 6.473
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