Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31532513›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2019

Concordance Between Electronic Clinical Documentation and Physicians' Observed Behavior.

Carl T Berdahl, Gregory J Moran, Owen McBride, Alexandra M Santini, Ilya A Verzhbinsky, David L Schriger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 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. The Hidden Work of the Note: What Ambient Scribes Ask Us to Decide.Journal of graduate medical education · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Carl T BerdahlNational Clinician Scholars Program, University of California, Los Angeles.
Gregory J MoranOlive View, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles.
Owen McBrideAlameda Health System, Department of Emergency Medicine, Highland Hospital, Oakland, California.
Alexandra M SantiniUniversity of California, Santa Cruz.
Ilya A VerzhbinskyUniversity of California, Los Angeles.
David L SchrigerDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Following the adoption of electronic health records into a regulatory environment designed for paper records, there has been little investigation into the accuracy of physician documentation. Objective: To quantify the percentage of emergency physician documentation of the review of systems (ROS) and physical examination (PE) that observers can confirm. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case series took place at emergency departments in 2 academic medical centers between 2016 and 2018. Participants' patient encounters were observed to compare real-time performance with clinical documentation. Exposures: Resident physicians were shadowed by trained observers for 20 encounters (10 encounters per physician per site) to obtain real-time observational data; associated electronic health record data were subsequently reviewed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number of confirmed ROS systems (range, 0-14) divided by the number of documented ROS systems (range, 0-14), and number of confirmed PE systems (range, 0-14) divided by the number of documented PE systems (range, 0-14). Results: The final study cohort included 9 licensed emergency medicine residents who evaluated a total of 180 patients (mean [SD] age, 48.7 [20.0] years; 91 [50.5%] women). For ROS, physicians documented a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 14 (8-14) systems, while audio recordings confirmed a median (IQR) of 5 (3-6) systems. Overall, 755 of 1961 documented ROS systems (38.5%) were confirmed by audio recording data. For PE, resident physicians documented a median (IQR) of 8 (7-9) verifiable systems, while observers confirmed a median (IQR) of 5.5 (3-6) systems. Overall, 760 of 1429 verifiable documented PE systems (53.2%) were confirmed by concurrent observation. Interrater reliability for rating of ROS and PE was more than 90% for all measures. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of 9 licensed year emergency medicine residents, there were inconsistencies between the documentation of ROS and PE findings in the electronic health record and observational reports. These findings raise the possibility that some documentation may not accurately represent physician actions. Further studies should be undertaken to determine whether this occurrence is widespread. However, because such studies are unlikely to be performed owing to institution-level barriers that exist nationwide, payers should consider removing financial incentives to generate lengthy documentation.

Indexed as

DocumentationElectronic Health RecordsMedical History TakingPhysical ExaminationPractice Patterns, Physicians'AdultEmergency MedicineEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedObservationPhysicians

Identifiers

PMID31532513
PMCPMC6751766

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.