PURPOSE: Accurate recording of diagnosis (DX) data in electronic health records (EHRs) is important for clinical practice and learning health care. Previous studies show statistically stable patterns of data entry in EHRs that contribute to inaccurate DX, likely because of a lack of data entry support. We conducted qualitative research to characterize the preferences of oncological care providers on cancer DX data entry in EHRs during clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews and focus groups to uncover common themes on DX data entry preferences and barriers to accurate DX recording. Then, we developed a survey questionnaire sent to a cohort of oncologists to verify the generalizability of our initial findings. We constrained our participants to a single specialty and institution to ensure similar clinical backgrounds and clinical experience with a single EHR system. RESULTS: A total of 12 neuro-oncologists and thoracic oncologists were involved in the interviews and focus groups. The survey developed from these two initial thrusts was distributed to 19 participants yielding a 94.7% survey response rate. Clinicians reported similar user interface experiences, barriers, and dissatisfaction with current DX entry systems including repetitive entry operations, difficulty in finding specific DX options, time-consuming interactions, and the need for workarounds to maintain efficiency. The survey revealed inefficient DX search interfaces and challenging entry processes as core barriers. CONCLUSION: Oncologists seem to be divided between specific DX data entry and time efficiency because of current interfaces and feel hindered by the burdensome and repetitive nature of EHR data entry. Oncologists' top concern for adopting data entry support interventions is ensuring that it provides significant time-saving benefits and increasing workflow efficiency. Future interventions should account for time efficiency, beyond ensuring data entry effectiveness.
PURPOSE: Accurate recording of diagnosis (DX) data in electronic health records (EHRs) is important for clinical practice and learning health care. Previous studies show statistically stable patterns of data entry in EHRs that contribute to inaccurate DX, likely because of a lack of data entry support. We conducted qualitative research to characterize the preferences of oncological care providers on cancer DX data entry in EHRs during clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews and focus groups to uncover common themes on DX data entry preferences and barriers to accurate DX recording. Then, we developed a survey questionnaire sent to a cohort of oncologists to verify the generalizability of our initial findings. We constrained our participants to a single specialty and institution to ensure similar clinical backgrounds and clinical experience with a single EHR system. RESULTS: A total of 12 neuro-oncologists and thoracic oncologists were involved in the interviews and focus groups. The survey developed from these two initial thrusts was distributed to 19 participants yielding a 94.7% survey response rate. Clinicians reported similar user interface experiences, barriers, and dissatisfaction with current DX entry systems including repetitive entry operations, difficulty in finding specific DX options, time-consuming interactions, and the need for workarounds to maintain efficiency. The survey revealed inefficient DX search interfaces and challenging entry processes as core barriers. CONCLUSION: Oncologists seem to be divided between specific DX data entry and time efficiency because of current interfaces and feel hindered by the burdensome and repetitive nature of EHR data entry. Oncologists' top concern for adopting data entry support interventions is ensuring that it provides significant time-saving benefits and increasing workflow efficiency. Future interventions should account for time efficiency, beyond ensuring data entry effectiveness.
Authors: Aaron S Kesselheim; Kathrin Cresswell; Shobha Phansalkar; David W Bates; Aziz Sheikh Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Amber Sieja; Katie Markley; Jonathan Pell; Christine Gonzalez; Brian Redig; Patrick Kneeland; Chen-Tan Lin Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Muhammad F Walji; Elsbeth Kalenderian; Duong Tran; Krishna K Kookal; Vickie Nguyen; Oluwabunmi Tokede; Joel M White; Ram Vaderhobli; Rachel Ramoni; Paul C Stark; Nicole S Kimmes; Meta E Schoonheim-Klein; Vimla L Patel Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2012-06-29 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Franck Diaz-Garelli; Roy Strowd; Virginia L Lawson; Maria E Mayorga; Brian J Wells; Thomas W Lycan; Umit Topaloglu Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2020-06
Authors: Meekang Sung; Jinyu He; Qi Zhou; Yaolong Chen; John S Ji; Haotian Chen; Zhihui Li Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-07-20 Impact factor: 7.076