Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27103191›Full record

Observational studyInternational journal of medical informatics2016

A comparative observational study of inpatient clinical note-entry and reading/retrieval styles adopted by physicians.

Rubina F Rizvi, Kathleen A Harder, Gretchen M Hultman, Terrence J Adam, Michael Kim, Serguei V S Pakhomov, Genevieve B Melton

Abstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in International journal of medical informatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Building the evidence-base to reduce electronic health record-related clinician burden.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Article
  11. Feeling and thinking: can theories of human motivation explain how EHR design impacts clinician burnout?Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Rubina F RizviInstitute for Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Kathleen A HarderInstitute for Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States; Center for Design in Health, College of Design, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Gretchen M HultmanInstitute for Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Terrence J AdamInstitute for Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States; College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Michael KimPediatric Hospital Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Serguei V S PakhomovInstitute for Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States; College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Genevieve B MeltonInstitute for Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States; Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States. Electronic address: gmelton@umn.edu.

Funding

University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute (UMN CTSI)UL1TR000114 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI BLAZAR, BRUCE R · 2012 to 2015
$35.0M
University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute (UMN CTSI)KL2TR000113 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI BLAZAR, BRUCE R · 2012 to 2015
$5.4M
Discovery and Visualization of New Information from Clinical Reports in the EHRR01HS022085 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI MELTON-MEAUX, GENEVIEVE B · 2013 to 2016
$1.9M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS022085AHRQ HHS R01HS022085NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR000113NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000114
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this study is to understand physicians' usage of inpatient notes by (i) ascertaining different clinical note-entry and reading/retrieval styles in two different and widely used Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems, (ii) extrapolating potential factors leading to adoption of various note-entry and reading/retrieval styles and (iii) determining the amount of time to task associated with documenting different types of clinical notes.

methodsIn order to answer "what" and "why" questions on physicians' adoption of certain-note-entry and reading/retrieval styles, an ethnographic study entailing Internal Medicine residents, with a mixed data analysis approach was performed. Participants were observed interacting with two different EHR systems in inpatient settings. Data was collected around the use and creation of History and Physical (H&P) notes, progress notes and discharge summaries.

resultsThe highest variability in template styles was observed with progress notes and the least variability was within discharge summaries, while note-writing styles were most consistent for H&P notes. The first sections to be read in a H&P and progress note were the Chief Complaint and Assessment & Plan sections, respectively. The greatest note retrieval variability, with respect to the order of how note sections were reviewed, was observed with H&P and progress notes. Physician preference for adopting a certain reading/retrieval order appeared to be a function of what best fits their workflow while fulfilling the stimulus demands. The time spent entering H&P, discharge summaries and progress notes were similar in both EHRs.

conclusionThis research study unveils existing variability in clinical documentation processes and provides us with important information that could help in designing a next generation EHR Graphical User Interface (GUI) that is more congruent with physicians' mental models, task performance needs, and workflow requirements.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsAdultDocumentationFemaleHumansInpatientsInternal MedicineMalePatient Care PlanningPhysiciansPractice Patterns, Physicians'ReadingUser-Computer InterfaceWritingClinical documentationElectronic health records systems (EHR)Graphical User Interface (GUI)Human-Computer Interaction (HCI)Qualitative analysisUsability

Identifiers

PMID27103191
PMCPMC5534410

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.