Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27400921›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2016

Patient Perceptions of Electronic Medical Record Use by Faculty and Resident Physicians: A Mixed Methods Study.

Wei Wei Lee, Maria A Alkureishi, Obioma Ukabiala, Laura Ruth Venable, Samantha S Ngooi, Daina D Staisiunas, Kristen E Wroblewski, Vineet M Arora

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Wei Wei LeeDepartment of Medicine, University of Chicago, 5841 S. Maryland Avenue MC 3051, L325B, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA. wlee6@uchicago.edu.
Maria A AlkureishiDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Obioma UkabialaPritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Laura Ruth VenableDepartment of Medicine, University of Chicago, 5841 S. Maryland Avenue MC 3051, L325B, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA.
Samantha S NgooiDepartment of Medicine, University of Chicago, 5841 S. Maryland Avenue MC 3051, L325B, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA.
Daina D StaisiunasDepartment of Medicine, University of Chicago, 5841 S. Maryland Avenue MC 3051, L325B, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA.
Kristen E WroblewskiDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Vineet M AroraDepartment of Medicine, University of Chicago, 5841 S. Maryland Avenue MC 3051, L325B, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile concerns remain regarding Electronic Medical Records (EMR) use impeding doctor-patient communication, resident and faculty patient perspectives post-widespread EMR adoption remain largely unexplored.

objectiveWe aimed to describe patient perspectives of outpatient resident and faculty EMR use and identify positive and negative EMR use examples to promote optimal utilization.

designThis was a prospective mixed-methods study.

participantsInternal medicine faculty and resident patients at the University of Chicago's primary care clinic participated in the study. APPROACH: In 2013, one year after EMR implementation, telephone interviews were conducted with patients using open-ended and Likert style questions to elicit positive and negative perceptions of EMR use by physicians. Interview transcripts were analyzed qualitatively to develop a coding classification. Satisfaction with physician EMR use was examined using bivariate statistics.

resultsIn total, 108 interviews were completed and analyzed. Two major themes were noted: (1) Clinical Functions of EMR and (2) Communication Functions of EMR; as well as six subthemes: (1a) Clinical Care (i.e., clinical efficiency), (1b) Documentation (i.e., proper record keeping and access), (1c) Information Access, (1d) Educational Resource, (2a) Patient Engagement and (2b) Physical Focus (i.e., body positioning). Overall, 85 % (979/1154) of patient perceptions of EMR use were positive, with the majority within the "Clinical Care" subtheme (n = 218). Of negative perceptions, 66 % (115/175) related to the "Communication Functions" theme, and the majority of those related to the "Physical Focus" subtheme (n = 71). The majority of patients (90 %, 95/106) were satisfied with physician EMR use: 59 % (63/107) reported the computer had a positive effect on their relationship and only 7 % (8/108) reported the EMR made it harder to talk with their doctors.

conclusionsDespite concerns regarding EMRs impeding doctor-patient communication, patients reported largely positive perceptions of the EMR with many patients reporting high levels of satisfaction. Future work should focus on improving doctors "physical focus" when using the EMR to redirect towards the patient.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionPhysician-Patient RelationsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overElectronic Health RecordsFaculty, MedicalFemaleHumansInternal MedicineInternship and ResidencyMaleMiddle AgedPhysiciansProspective StudiesYoung Adultcommunication skillselectronic health recordspatient-centered carephysician patient relations

Identifiers

PMID27400921
PMCPMC5071284

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.