ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes2019
Mayo Clinic Registry of Operational Tasks (ROOT): A Paradigm Shift in Electronic Health Reco Implementation Evaluation.
Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Methods and Lessons Learned from a Current State Workflow Assessment following Transition to a New Electronic Health Record System.Perspectives in health information managemen · 2023Article
- Characterizing and Visualizing Display and Task Fragmentation in the Electronic Health Record: Mixed Methods Design.JMIR human factors · 2020Article
- Growing Up Fast!Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically examine clinical workflows before and after a major electronic health record (EHR) implementation, we performed this study. EHR implementation and/or conversion are associated with many challenges, which are barriers to optimal care. Clinical workflows may be significantly affected by EHR implementations and conversions, resulting in provider frustration and reduced efficiency. PATIENTS AND
methodsOur institution completed a large EHR conversion and workflow standardization converting from 3 EHRs (GE Centricity and 2 versions of Cerner) to a system-wide Epic platform. To study this quantitatively and qualitatively, we collected and curated clinical workflows through rapid ethnography, workflow observation, video ethnography, and log-file analyses of hundreds of providers, patients, and more than 100,000 log files. The study included 5 geographic sites in 4 states (Arizona, Minnesota, Florida, and Wisconsin). This project began in April 2016, and will be completed by December 2019. Our study began on May 1, 2016, and is ongoing.
resultsSalient themes include the importance of prioritizing clinical areas with the most intensive EHR use, the value of tools to identify bottlenecks in workflow that cause delays, and desire for additional training to optimize navigation. Video microanalyses identified marked differences in patterns of workflow and EHR navigation patterns across sites. Log-file analyses and social network analyses identified differences in personnel roles, which led to differences in patient-clinician interaction, time spent using the EHR, and paper-based artifacts.
conclusionAssessing and curating workflow data before and after EHR conversion may provide opportunities for unexpected efficiencies in workflow optimization and information-system redesign. This project may be a model for capturing significant new knowledge in using EHRs to improve patient care, workflow efficiency, and outcomes.
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.