Bryan D Steitz1, Kim M Unertl1, Mia A Levy1,2. 1. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, United States. 2. Division Hematology, Oncology and Cell Therapy, Department of Medicine, Rush University School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Asynchronous messaging is an integral aspect of communication in clinical settings, but imposes additional work and potentially leads to inefficiency. The goal of this study was to describe the time spent using the electronic health record (EHR) to manage asynchronous communication to support breast cancer care coordination. METHODS: We analyzed 3 years of audit logs and secure messaging logs from the EHR for care team members involved in breast cancer care at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. To evaluate trends in EHR use, we combined log data into sequences of events that occurred within 15 minutes of any other event by the same employee about the same patient. RESULTS: Our cohort of 9,761 patients were the subject of 430,857 message threads by 7,194 employees over a 3-year period. Breast cancer care team members performed messaging actions in 37.5% of all EHR sessions, averaging 29.8 (standard deviation [SD] = 23.5) messaging sessions per day. Messaging sessions lasted an average of 1.1 (95% confidence interval: 0.99-1.24) minutes longer than nonmessaging sessions. On days when the cancer providers did not otherwise have clinical responsibilities, they still performed messaging actions in an average of 15 (SD = 11.9) sessions per day. CONCLUSION: At our institution, clinical messaging occurred in 35% of all EHR sessions. Clinical messaging, sometimes viewed as a supporting task of clinical work, is important to delivering and coordinating care across roles. Measuring the electronic work of asynchronous communication among care team members affords the opportunity to systematically identify opportunities to improve employee workload. Thieme. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: Asynchronous messaging is an integral aspect of communication in clinical settings, but imposes additional work and potentially leads to inefficiency. The goal of this study was to describe the time spent using the electronic health record (EHR) to manage asynchronous communication to support breast cancer care coordination. METHODS: We analyzed 3 years of audit logs and secure messaging logs from the EHR for care team members involved in breast cancer care at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. To evaluate trends in EHR use, we combined log data into sequences of events that occurred within 15 minutes of any other event by the same employee about the same patient. RESULTS: Our cohort of 9,761 patients were the subject of 430,857 message threads by 7,194 employees over a 3-year period. Breast cancer care team members performed messaging actions in 37.5% of all EHR sessions, averaging 29.8 (standard deviation [SD] = 23.5) messaging sessions per day. Messaging sessions lasted an average of 1.1 (95% confidence interval: 0.99-1.24) minutes longer than nonmessaging sessions. On days when the cancer providers did not otherwise have clinical responsibilities, they still performed messaging actions in an average of 15 (SD = 11.9) sessions per day. CONCLUSION: At our institution, clinical messaging occurred in 35% of all EHR sessions. Clinical messaging, sometimes viewed as a supporting task of clinical work, is important to delivering and coordinating care across roles. Measuring the electronic work of asynchronous communication among care team members affords the opportunity to systematically identify opportunities to improve employee workload. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Authors: Daniel R Murphy; Brian Reis; Himabindu Kadiyala; Kamal Hirani; Dean F Sittig; Myrna M Khan; Hardeep Singh Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2012-02-13
Authors: Ming Tai-Seale; Ellis C Dillon; Yan Yang; Robert Nordgren; Ruth L Steinberg; Teresa Nauenberg; Tim C Lee; Amy Meehan; Jinnan Li; Albert Solomon Chan; Dominick L Frosch Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Brian G Arndt; John W Beasley; Michelle D Watkinson; Jonathan L Temte; Wen-Jan Tuan; Christine A Sinsky; Valerie J Gilchrist Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Ioana Danciu; James D Cowan; Melissa Basford; Xiaoming Wang; Alexander Saip; Susan Osgood; Jana Shirey-Rice; Jacqueline Kirby; Paul A Harris Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Christine A Sinsky; Adam Rule; Genna Cohen; Brian G Arndt; Tait D Shanafelt; Christopher D Sharp; Sally L Baxter; Ming Tai-Seale; Sherry Yan; You Chen; Julia Adler-Milstein; Michelle Hribar Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Kim M Unertl; Laurie Lovett Novak; Courtney Van Houten; JoAnn Brooks; Andrew O Smith; Joyce Webb Harris; Taylor Avery; Christopher Simpson; Nancy M Lorenzi Journal: JAMIA Open Date: 2020-04-20
Authors: Tracy A Lieu; Andrea Altschuler; Jonathan Z Weiner; Jeffrey A East; Mark F Moeller; Stephanie Prausnitz; Mary E Reed; E Margaret Warton; Nancy Goler; Sameer Awsare Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-12-02