Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28893812›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of family medicine2017

Impact of Scribes on Physician Satisfaction, Patient Satisfaction, and Charting Efficiency: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Risha Gidwani, Cathina Nguyen, Alexis Kofoed, Catherine Carragee, Tracy Rydel, Ian Nelligan, Amelia Sattler, Megan Mahoney, Steven Lin

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of family medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

86 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Measuring Documentation Burden in Healthcare.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Clinician Perceptions of Virtual Scribe Use: A Survey Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

9 authors.

Risha GidwaniCenter for Health Policy and Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Cathina NguyenDivision of Epidemiology, Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Alexis KofoedDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Catherine CarrageeDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Tracy RydelDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Ian NelliganDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Amelia SattlerDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Megan MahoneyDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Steven LinDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California stevenlin@stanford.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeScribes are increasingly being used in clinical practice despite a lack of high-quality evidence regarding their effects. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of medical scribes on physician satisfaction, patient satisfaction, and charting efficiency.

methodsWe conducted a randomized controlled trial in which physicians in an academic family medicine clinic were randomized to 1 week with a scribe then 1 week without a scribe for the course of 1 year. Scribes drafted all relevant documentation, which was reviewed by the physician before attestation and signing. In encounters without a scribe, the physician performed all charting duties. Our outcomes were physician satisfaction, measured by a 5-item instrument that included physicians' perceptions of chart quality and chart accuracy; patient satisfaction, measured by a 6-item instrument; and charting efficiency, measured by time to chart close.

resultsScribes improved all aspects of physician satisfaction, including overall satisfaction with clinic (OR = 10.75), having enough face time with patients (OR = 3.71), time spent charting (OR = 86.09), chart quality (OR = 7.25), and chart accuracy (OR = 4.61) (all

conclusionsTo our knowledge, we have conducted the first randomized controlled trial of scribes. We found that scribes produced significant improvements in overall physician satisfaction, satisfaction with chart quality and accuracy, and charting efficiency without detracting from patient satisfaction. Scribes appear to be a promising strategy to improve health care efficiency and reduce physician burnout.

Indexed as

Efficiency, OrganizationalJob SatisfactionPatient SatisfactionAdultDocumentationFamily PracticeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhysicians, Familyefficiencyelectronic health recordsmedical scribespatient satisfactionprimary care physiciansrandomized controlled trialwork satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID28893812
PMCPMC5593725

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.