Observational studyMedicine2015
Impact of a New Medical Record System for Emergency Departments Designed to Accelerate Clinical Documentation: A Crossover Study.
Observational study in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- The use of Electronic Health Records to Support Population Health: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Journal of medical systems · 2018Pooled it
- Influence of Previous Emergency Department Visit Information on Care of Current Patients.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Design and Implementation of a Collaborative Clinical Practice and Research Documentation System Using SNOMED-CT and HL7-CDA in the Context of a Pediatric Neurodevelopmental Unit.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Measurement of clinical documentation burden among physicians and nurses using electronic health records: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
- Clinical Audit on the Practice of Documentation at Preanesthetic Evaluation in a Specialized University Hospital.Anesthesia, essays and researchesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recording information in emergency departments (EDs) constitutes a major obstacle to efficient treatment. A new electronic medical records (EMR) system focusing on clinical documentation was developed to accelerate patient flow. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of a new EMR system on ED length of stay and physician satisfaction.We integrated a new EMR system at a hospital already using a standard system. A crossover design was adopted whereby residents were randomized into 2 groups. Group A used the existing EMR system first, followed by the newly developed system, for 2 weeks each. Group B followed the opposite sequence. The time required to provide overall medical care, length of stay in ED, and degree of physician satisfaction were compared between the 2 EMR systems.The study involved 6 residents and 526 patients (277 assessed using the standard system and 249 assessed with the new system). Mean time for clinical documentation decreased from 133.7 ± 5.1 minutes to 107.5 ± 5.4 minutes with the new EMR system (P < 0.001). The time for overall medical care was significantly reduced in all patient groups except triage level 5 (nonurgent). The new EMR system significantly reduced the length of stay in ED for triage level 2 (emergency) patients (145.4 ± 13.6 minutes vs 184.3 ± 13.6 minutes for standard system; P = 0.047). As for the degree of physician satisfaction, there was a high degree of satisfaction in terms of the physical findings support system and the ability to capture images and enter negative findings.The new EMR system shortened the time for overall medical care and was associated with a high degree of resident satisfaction.
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.