ArticleMedical education online2013
Writing and reading in the electronic health record: an entirely new world.
Article in Medical education online, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Outpatient Note Templates on Note Quality: NOTE (Notation Optimization through Template Engineering) Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Trial
- Information Prioritization and Reading Patterns in Electronic Health Record Nursing Summaries: An Eye-Tracking Case Study.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
- Deep Phenotyping of Chinese Electronic Health Records by Recognizing Linguistic Patterns of Phenotypic Narratives With a Sequence Motif Discovery Tool: Algorithm Development and Validation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Enhanced neurologic concept recognition using a named entity recognition model based on transformers.Frontiers in digital health · 2022Article
- Words prediction based on N-gram model for free-text entry in electronic health records.Health information science and systems · 2019Article
- Trends in time in the management of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator in the last phase of life: a retrospective study of medical records.European journal of cardiovascular nursing · 2019Article
- Challenges and Opportunities to Improve the Clinician Experience Reviewing Electronic Progress Notes.Applied clinical informatics · 2019Article
- Usability Evaluation of an Unstructured Clinical Document Query Tool for Researchers.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2018Article
- Better documentation in electronic medical records would lead to an increased use of lower extremity venous ultrasound in the inpatient setting: a retrospective study.Acute medicine & surgery · 2017Article
- Usability Testing of Two Ambulatory EHR Navigators.Applied clinical informatics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundElectronic health records (EHRs) are structured, distributed documentation systems that differ from paper charts. These systems require skills not traditionally used to navigate a paper chart and to produce a written clinic note. Despite these differences, little attention has been given to physicians' electronic health record (EHR)-writing and -reading competence. PURPOSES: This study aims to investigate physicians' self-assessed competence to document and to read EHR notes; writing and reading preferences in an EHR; and demographic characteristics associated with their perceived EHR ability and preference.
methodsFourteen 5-point Likert scale items, based on EHR system characteristics and a literature review, were developed to measure EHR-writing and -reading competence and preference. Physicians in the midwest region of the United States were invited via e-mail to complete the survey online from February to April 2011. Factor analysis and reliability testing were conducted to provide validity and reliability of the instrument. Correlation and regression analysis were conducted to pursue answers to the research questions.
resultsNinety-one physicians (12.5%), from general and specialty fields, working in inpatient and outpatient settings, participated in the survey. Despite over 3 years of EHR experience, respondents perceived themselves to be incompetent in EHR writing and reading (Mean = 2.74, SD = 0.76). They preferred to read succinct, narrative notes in EHR systems. However, physicians with higher perceived EHR-writing and -reading competence had less preference toward reading succinct (r= - 0.33, p<0.001) and narrative (r= - 0.36, p<0.001) EHR notes than physicians with lower perceived EHR competence. Physicians' perceived EHR-writing and -reading competence was strongly related to their EHR navigation skills (r=0.55, p<0.0001).
conclusionsWriting and reading EHR documentation is different for physicians. Maximizing navigation skills can optimize non-linear EHR writing and reading. Pedagogical questions remain related to how physicians and medical students are able to retrieve correct information effectively and to understand thought patterns in collectively lengthier and sometimes fragmented EHR chart notes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.