Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31216591›Full record

ArticleApplied clinical informatics2019

Challenges and Opportunities to Improve the Clinician Experience Reviewing Electronic Progress Notes.

Gretchen M Hultman, Jenna L Marquard, Elizabeth Lindemann, Elliot Arsoniadis, Serguei Pakhomov, Genevieve B Melton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. What do clinicians edit in ambient AI-drafted clinical documentation? A qualitative content analysis.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Aspect-Oriented Summarization for Psychiatric Short-Term Readmission Prediction.Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Summarizing Patients' Problems from Hospital Progress Notes Using Pre-trained Sequence-to-Sequence Models.Proceedings of COLING. International Conference on Computational Linguistics · 2022
    Article
  15. Hierarchical Annotation for Building A Suite of Clinical Natural Language Processing Tasks: Progress Note Understanding.LREC ... International Conference on Language Resources & Evaluation : [proceedings]. International Conference on Language Resources & Evaluation · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Building the evidence-base to reduce electronic health record-related clinician burden.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Article
  20. Clinical Thinking via Electronic Note Templates: Who Benefits?Journal of general internal medicine · 2021
    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

6 authors.

Gretchen M HultmanInstitute for Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States.
Jenna L MarquardCollege of Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, United States.
Elizabeth LindemannDepartment of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States.
Elliot ArsoniadisInstitute for Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States.
Serguei PakhomovInstitute for Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States.
Genevieve B MeltonInstitute for Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States.

Funding

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 HS022085
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh-quality clinical notes are essential to effective clinical communication. However, electronic clinical notes are often long, difficult to review, and contain information that is potentially extraneous or out of date. Additionally, many clinicians write electronic clinical notes using customized templates, resulting in notes with significant variability in structure. There is a need to understand better how clinicians review electronic notes and how note structure variability may impact clinicians' note-reviewing experiences.

objectiveThis article aims to understand how physicians review electronic clinical notes and what impact section order has on note-reviewing patterns. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe conducted an experiment utilizing an electronic health record (EHR) system prototype containing four anonymized patient cases, each composed of nine progress notes that were presented with note sections organized in different orders to different subjects (i.e., Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan, Assessment, Plan, Subjective, and Objective, Subjective, Assessment, Objective, and Plan, and Mixed). Participants, who were mid-level residents and fellows, reviewed the cases and provided a brief summary after reviewing each case. Time-related data were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Surveys were administered and interviews regarding experiences reviewing notes were collected and analyzed qualitatively.

resultsQualitatively, participants reported challenges related to reviewing electronic clinical notes. Experimentally, time spent reviewing notes varied based on the note section organization. Consistency in note section organization improved performance (e.g., less scrolling and searching) compared with Mixed section organization when reviewing progress notes. DISCUSSION: Clinicians face significant challenges reviewing electronic clinical notes. Our findings support minimizing extraneous information in notes, removing information that can be found in other parts of the EHR, and standardizing the display and order of note sections to improve clinicians' note review experience.

conclusionOur findings support the need to improve EHR note design and presentation to support optimal note review patterns for clinicians.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsAdultFemaleHumansMalePhysiciansTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID31216591
PMCPMC6584143

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.