ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2013
Evaluating how electronic charting affects resident productivity.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electronic medical records (EMRs) are becoming standard to improve the communication of information and longevity of patient records. Using an EMR in the emergency department (ED) could potentially slow residents evaluating patients. We evaluated how introducing an EMR affected resident productivity in an academic ED. We retrospectively studied first year emergency medicine residents from a large, academic, tertiary care center before-and-after the institution of an EMR on July 1st, 2010. No residents from the 2009-2010 class used the EMR, while all of the 2010-2011 residents used the EMR. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses using productivity, measured in patients per hour (pt/hr), as the primary outcome. A mixed-model multivariate regression, stratified by acuity zone, was created incorporating EMR and other possible confounders: admissions, signouts, daily ED volume, and days after July 1st for each shift. The study was granted IRB waiver of informed. We reviewed 2,405 shifts: 1,259 shifts before and 1,146 shifts after EMR implementation. When using the EMR, the univariate analysis estimated a 0.084 pt/hr increase in the high acuity zone (p = 0.1317) and 0.029 pt/hr decrease (p = 0.7085) in the low acuity zone. The multivariate regression estimated a 0.038 pt/hr increase (p = 0.3413) in the high acuity zone and a 0.009 pt/hr increase (p = 0.9049) in the low acuity zone with the EMR. Despite the expectation that electronic charting is detrimental to resident productivity, our analyses do not suggest a significant relationship between resident productivity and using the EMR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23334927What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.