Constanza Villalba1, Ryan C Burke2, Kiersten Gurley2,3, Gurpreet Dhaliwal4,5, Shamai Grossman2. 1. Elsevier Clinical Solutions Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Boston Massachusetts USA. 3. Anna Jaques Hospital Newburyport Massachusetts USA. 4. Department of Medicine University of California, San Francisco San Francisco California USA. 5. Medical Service San Francisco VA Medical Center San Francisco California USA.
Abstract
Objectives: Emergency medicine (EM) physicians commonly track the progress of former patients to learn about their clinical outcome. While some studies have described the behavior, little is known about the specific information sought during tracking. The objective of this study was to determine how often EM physicians track patients and the motivations, strategies, and barriers to tracking. Methods: In June 2019 we surveyed EM physicians practicing at six hospitals. We defined patient tracking as viewing the chart of a patient who was no longer under the physician's care or contacting the patient or the patient's subsequent providers to learn about the patient's progress. The survey asked respondents how often they track patients, by what mechanisms, and for what reasons. The survey also asked what information physicians sought when tracking and what barriers to tracking exist. Results: Of the 156 EM physicians invited to respond, 111 completed the survey (72% response rate). Of those, 109 (98%) reported tracking their patients, and residents reported tracking a higher percentage of patients than attendings. Reasons for tracking included an unusual or complex case (98%), uncertain diagnosis (89%), and concern about a potential error (48%). Most respondents (86%) said that knowledge gained from patient tracking changed their subsequent practice patterns, and almost all respondents (98%) strongly agreed or agreed that tracking helps physicians avoid future mistakes. The most commonly sought information types during tracking were the hospital discharge summary or emergency department note from the index visit, test results since the index visit, and new diagnoses added since the index visit. Physicians cited time limitations and difficulty accessing information as the leading barriers to tracking. Conclusions: Patient tracking is nearly ubiquitous among surveyed EM physicians, who find it valuable for learning and patient safety.
Objectives: Emergency medicine (EM) physicians commonly track the progress of former patients to learn about their clinical outcome. While some studies have described the behavior, little is known about the specific information sought during tracking. The objective of this study was to determine how often EM physicians track patients and the motivations, strategies, and barriers to tracking. Methods: In June 2019 we surveyed EM physicians practicing at six hospitals. We defined patient tracking as viewing the chart of a patient who was no longer under the physician's care or contacting the patient or the patient's subsequent providers to learn about the patient's progress. The survey asked respondents how often they track patients, by what mechanisms, and for what reasons. The survey also asked what information physicians sought when tracking and what barriers to tracking exist. Results: Of the 156 EM physicians invited to respond, 111 completed the survey (72% response rate). Of those, 109 (98%) reported tracking their patients, and residents reported tracking a higher percentage of patients than attendings. Reasons for tracking included an unusual or complex case (98%), uncertain diagnosis (89%), and concern about a potential error (48%). Most respondents (86%) said that knowledge gained from patient tracking changed their subsequent practice patterns, and almost all respondents (98%) strongly agreed or agreed that tracking helps physicians avoid future mistakes. The most commonly sought information types during tracking were the hospital discharge summary or emergency department note from the index visit, test results since the index visit, and new diagnoses added since the index visit. Physicians cited time limitations and difficulty accessing information as the leading barriers to tracking. Conclusions: Patient tracking is nearly ubiquitous among surveyed EM physicians, who find it valuable for learning and patient safety.
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: William B Cutrer; Bonnie Miller; Martin V Pusic; George Mejicano; Rajesh S Mangrulkar; Larry D Gruppen; Richard E Hawkins; Susan E Skochelak; Donald E Moore Journal: Acad Med Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: William L Scheving; Joseph M Ebersole; Michael Froehler; Donald Moore; Kiersten Brown-Espaillat; James Closser; Wesley H Self; Michael J Ward Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2019-07-11 Impact factor: 2.469