ArticleApplied clinical informatics2017
A hospital-wide transition from paper to digital problem-oriented clinical notes. A descriptive history and cross-sectional survey of use, usability, and satisfaction.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adaptation of J-SPEED for the emergency department of a regional hospital in the Republic of Uzbekistan: retrospective analysis.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Challenges and Opportunities to Improve the Clinician Experience Reviewing Electronic Progress Notes.Applied clinical informatics · 2019Article
- Impact of Electronic versus Paper-Based Recording before EHR Implementation on Health Care Professionals' Perceptions of EHR Use, Data Quality, and Data Reuse.Applied clinical informatics · 2019Article
- Physician Perceptions of the Electronic Problem List in Pediatric Trauma Care.Applied clinical informatics · 2019Article
- Teleconsultation Using Mobile Phones for Diagnosis and Acute Care of Burn Injuries Among Emergency Physicians: Mixed-Methods Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the use, usability, and physician satisfaction of a locally developed problem-oriented clinical notes application that replaced paper-based records in a large Dutch university medical center.
methodsUsing a clinical notes database and an application event log file and a cross-sectional survey of usability, authors retrospectively analyzed system usage for medical specialties, users, and patients over 4 years. A standardized questionnaire measured usability. Authors analyzed the effects of sex, age, professional experience, training hours, and medical specialty on user satisfaction via univariate analysis of variance. Authors also examined the correlation between user satisfaction in relation to users' intensity of use of the application.
resultsIn total 1,793 physicians used the application to record progress notes for 219,755 patients. The overall satisfaction score was 3.2 on a scale from 1 (highly dissatisfied) to 5 (highly satisfied). A statistically significant difference occurred in satisfaction by medical specialty, but no statistically significant differences in satisfaction took place by sex, age, professional experience, or training hours. Intensity of system use did not correlate with physician satisfaction.
conclusionsBy two years after the start of the implementation, all medical specialties utilized the clinical notes application. User satisfaction was neutral (3.2 on a 1-5 scale). Authors believe that the significant factors facilitating this transition mirrored success factors reported by other groups: a generic, consistent, and transparent design of the application; intensive collaboration; continuous monitoring; and an incremental rollout.
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.