Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24734131›Full record

ArticleApplied clinical informatics2014

Determining primary care physician information needs to inform ambulatory visit note display.

M A Clarke, L M Steege, J L Moore, R J Koopman, J L Belden, M S Kim

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Finding the Value: Identifying the Key Elements of Recorded Clinic Visits From the Perspective of Patients, Clinicians, and Caregivers.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Information needs for the rapid response team electronic clinical tool.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2017
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

M A ClarkeUniversity of Missouri Informatics Institute, University of Missouri.
L M SteegeSchool of Information Science and Learning Technology, University of Missouri.
J L Moore
R J KoopmanUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison School of Nursing.
J L BeldenUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison School of Nursing.
M S Kim

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the increase in the adoption of electronic health records (EHR) across the US, primary care physicians are experiencing information overload. The purpose of this pilot study was to determine the information needs of primary care physicians (PCPs) as they review clinic visit notes to inform EHR display.

methodData collection was conducted with 15 primary care physicians during semi-structured interviews, including a third party observer to control bias. Physicians reviewed major sections of an artificial but typical acute and chronic care visit note to identify the note sections that were relevant to their information needs. Statistical methods used were McNemar-Mosteller's and Cochran Q.

resultsPhysicians identified History of Present Illness (HPI), Assessment, and Plan (A&P) as the most important sections of a visit note. In contrast, they largely judged the Review of Systems (ROS) to be superfluous. There was also a statistical difference in physicians' highlighting among all seven major note sections in acute (p = 0.00) and chronic (p = 0.00) care visit notes.

conclusionA&P and HPI sections were most frequently identified as important which suggests that physicians may have to identify a few key sections out of a long, unnecessarily verbose visit note. ROS is viewed by doctors as mostly "not needed," but can have relevant information. The ROS can contain information needed for patient care when other sections of the Visit note, such as the HPI, lack the relevant information. Future studies should include producing a display that provides only relevant information to increase physician efficiency at the point of care. Also, research on moving A&P to the top of visit notes instead of having A&P at the bottom of the page is needed, since those are usually the first sections physicians refer to and reviewing from top to bottom may cause cognitive load.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareAmbulatory Care Information SystemsPhysicians, Primary CareAcute DiseaseAdultChronic DiseaseDemographyFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedAttitude of Health PersonnelData DisplayElectronic Health RecordInformation NeedsInformation Seeking BehaviorPrimary Care PhysiciansUser-Computer Interface

Identifiers

PMID24734131
PMCPMC3974234

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.