Tom de Hoop1, Thomas Neumuth1. 1. Innovation Center Computer Assisted Surgery, Institute at the Faculty of Medicine, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study set out to obtain a general profile of physician time expenditure and electronic health record (EHR) limitations in a large university medical center in Germany. We also aim to illustrate the merit of a tool allowing for easier capture and prioritization of specific clinical needs at the point of care for which the current study will inform development in subsequent work. METHODS: Nineteen physicians across six different departments participated in this study. Direct clinical observations were conducted with 13 out of 19 physicians for a total of 2,205 minutes, and semistructured interviews were conducted with all participants. During observations, time was measured for larger activity categories (searching information, reading information, documenting information, patient interaction, calling, and others). Semistructured interviews focused on perceived limitations, frustrations, and desired improvements regarding the EHR environment. RESULTS: Of the observed time, 37.1% was spent interacting with the health records (9.0% searching, 7.7% reading, and 20.5% writing), 28.0% was spent interacting with patients corrected for EHR use (26.9% of time in a patient's presence), 6.8% was spent calling, and 28.1% was spent on other activities. Major themes of discontent were a spread of patient information, high and often repeated documentation burden, poor integration of (new) information into workflow, limits in information exchange, and the impact of such problems on patient interaction. Physicians stated limited means to address such issues at the point of care. CONCLUSION: In the study hospital, over one-third of physicians' time was spent interacting with the EHR, environment, with many aspects of used systems far from optimal and no convenient way for physicians to address issues as they occur at the point of care. A tool facilitating easier identification and registration of issues, as they occur, may aid in generating a more complete overview of limitations in the EHR environment. Thieme. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVES: This study set out to obtain a general profile of physician time expenditure and electronic health record (EHR) limitations in a large university medical center in Germany. We also aim to illustrate the merit of a tool allowing for easier capture and prioritization of specific clinical needs at the point of care for which the current study will inform development in subsequent work. METHODS: Nineteen physicians across six different departments participated in this study. Direct clinical observations were conducted with 13 out of 19 physicians for a total of 2,205 minutes, and semistructured interviews were conducted with all participants. During observations, time was measured for larger activity categories (searching information, reading information, documenting information, patient interaction, calling, and others). Semistructured interviews focused on perceived limitations, frustrations, and desired improvements regarding the EHR environment. RESULTS: Of the observed time, 37.1% was spent interacting with the health records (9.0% searching, 7.7% reading, and 20.5% writing), 28.0% was spent interacting with patients corrected for EHR use (26.9% of time in a patient's presence), 6.8% was spent calling, and 28.1% was spent on other activities. Major themes of discontent were a spread of patient information, high and often repeated documentation burden, poor integration of (new) information into workflow, limits in information exchange, and the impact of such problems on patient interaction. Physicians stated limited means to address such issues at the point of care. CONCLUSION: In the study hospital, over one-third of physicians' time was spent interacting with the EHR, environment, with many aspects of used systems far from optimal and no convenient way for physicians to address issues as they occur at the point of care. A tool facilitating easier identification and registration of issues, as they occur, may aid in generating a more complete overview of limitations in the EHR environment. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Authors: Tait D Shanafelt; Omar Hasan; Lotte N Dyrbye; Christine Sinsky; Daniel Satele; Jeff Sloan; Colin P West Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Lisa Pizziferri; Anne F Kittler; Lynn A Volk; Melissa M Honour; Sameer Gupta; Samuel Wang; Tiffany Wang; Margaret Lippincott; Qi Li; David W Bates Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2004-12-14 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Pieter J Helmons; Bas O Suijkerbuijk; Prashant V Nannan Panday; Jos G W Kosterink Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-02-10 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Dean F Sittig; Adam Wright; Jerome A Osheroff; Blackford Middleton; Jonathan M Teich; Joan S Ash; Emily Campbell; David W Bates Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2007-09-21 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Philip J Kroth; Nancy Morioka-Douglas; Sharry Veres; Katherine Pollock; Stewart Babbott; Sara Poplau; Katherine Corrigan; Mark Linzer Journal: JAMIA Open Date: 2018-06-11
Authors: Edward R Melnick; Elizabeth Harry; Christine A Sinsky; Liselotte N Dyrbye; Hanhan Wang; Mickey Todd Trockel; Colin P West; Tait Shanafelt Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-12-22 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Mollie Hobensack; Deborah R Levy; Kenrick Cato; Don E Detmer; Kevin B Johnson; Jeffrey Williamson; Judy Murphy; Amanda Moy; Jennifer Withall; Rachel Lee; Sarah Collins Rossetti; Samuel Trent Rosenbloom Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2022-05-11 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Tom Ebbers; Rudolf B Kool; Ludi E Smeele; Robert P Takes; Guido B van den Broek; Richard Dirven Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2022-09-14 Impact factor: 2.762