BACKGROUND: The amount of time that health care clinicians (physicians and nurses) spend interacting with the electronic health record is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the time that health care providers spend interacting with electronic health records (EHR). METHODS: Data are retrieved from Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, (Ovid) Embase, CINAHL, and SCOPUS. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed studies that describe the use of EHR and include measurement of time either in hours, minutes, or in the percentage of a clinician's workday. Papers were written in English and published between 1990 and 2021. PARTICIPANTS: All physicians and nurses involved in inpatient and outpatient settings. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: A narrative synthesis of the results, providing summaries of interaction time with EHR. The studies were rated according to Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs. RESULTS: Out of 5,133 de-duplicated references identified through database searching, 18 met inclusion criteria. Most were time-motion studies (50%) that followed by logged-based analysis (44%). Most were conducted in the United States (94%) and examined a clinician workflow in the inpatient settings (83%). The average time was nearly 37% of time of their workday by physicians in both inpatient and outpatient settings and 22% of the workday by nurses in inpatient settings. The studies showed methodological heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: This systematic review evaluates the time that health care providers spend interacting with EHR. Interaction time with EHR varies depending on clinicians' roles and clinical settings, computer systems, and users' experience. The average time spent by physicians on EHR exceeded one-third of their workday. The finding is a possible indicator that the EHR has room for usability, functionality improvement, and workflow optimization. Thieme. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: The amount of time that health care clinicians (physicians and nurses) spend interacting with the electronic health record is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the time that health care providers spend interacting with electronic health records (EHR). METHODS: Data are retrieved from Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, (Ovid) Embase, CINAHL, and SCOPUS. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed studies that describe the use of EHR and include measurement of time either in hours, minutes, or in the percentage of a clinician's workday. Papers were written in English and published between 1990 and 2021. PARTICIPANTS: All physicians and nurses involved in inpatient and outpatient settings. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: A narrative synthesis of the results, providing summaries of interaction time with EHR. The studies were rated according to Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs. RESULTS: Out of 5,133 de-duplicated references identified through database searching, 18 met inclusion criteria. Most were time-motion studies (50%) that followed by logged-based analysis (44%). Most were conducted in the United States (94%) and examined a clinician workflow in the inpatient settings (83%). The average time was nearly 37% of time of their workday by physicians in both inpatient and outpatient settings and 22% of the workday by nurses in inpatient settings. The studies showed methodological heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: This systematic review evaluates the time that health care providers spend interacting with EHR. Interaction time with EHR varies depending on clinicians' roles and clinical settings, computer systems, and users' experience. The average time spent by physicians on EHR exceeded one-third of their workday. The finding is a possible indicator that the EHR has room for usability, functionality improvement, and workflow optimization. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Authors: Stewart Babbott; Linda Baier Manwell; Roger Brown; Enid Montague; Eric Williams; Mark Schwartz; Erik Hess; Mark Linzer Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Lauren Block; Robert Habicht; Albert W Wu; Sanjay V Desai; Kevin Wang; Kathryn Novello Silva; Timothy Niessen; Nora Oliver; Leonard Feldman Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 5.128
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: Nathalie Wenger; Marie Méan; Julien Castioni; Pedro Marques-Vidal; Gérard Waeber; Antoine Garnier Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 25.391
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: Dorota Kilańska; Agnieszka Ogonowska; Barbara Librowska; Maja Kusiak; Michał Marczak; Remigiusz Kozlowski Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-20 Impact factor: 4.614