ArticleOphthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery
Evaluation of Electronic Health Record Implementation in an Academic Oculoplastics Practice.
Article in Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measuring Documentation Burden in Healthcare.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Development and Validation of a Workflow Instrument to Evaluate the Success of Electronic Health Records Implementation from a Nursing Perspective: An Exploratory and Descriptive Study.Global journal on quality and safety in healthcare · 2025Article
- Cost minimization analysis of indication-specific osteosynthesis material in oral and maxillofacial surgery.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2024Article
- Comparing the Accuracy and Readability of Glaucoma-related Question Responses and Educational Materials by Google and ChatGPT.Journal of current glaucoma practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDespite increasing electronic health record (EHR) adoption, perceptions of EHRs are negative among ophthalmologists due to concerns about productivity, costs, and documentation. The authors evaluated the effects of EHR adoption in an oculoplastics practice, which had not been previously studied.
methodsClinical volume, documentation time, time spent with patients, reimbursement, relative value units, and patient satisfaction were examined for 2 academic oculoplastics attendings between April 2018 and April 2019, with EHR implementation in September 2018.
resultsThe mean number of patients seen in a half-day clinic was 31.8 versus 27.7 (p = 0.018) pre- and post-EHR implementation, respectively. EHR implementation had no effect on total monthly reimbursement (p = 0.88) or total monthly relative value units (p = 0.54). Average reimbursement (p = 0.004) and relative value units (p = 0.001) per patient encounter were significantly greater with EHR use. Patient satisfaction scores improved (p = 0.018). Mean physician time per patient increased from 6.4 to 9.0 minutes (p < 0.001). Mean documentation time per patient increased from 1.7 to 3.6 minutes (p < 0.001). Average patient wait times decreased by 9 minutes (p = 0.03) with EHR use. No scribes were used.
conclusionsEHR implementation was associated with decreased patient volume without significant differences in total reimbursement. Although EHR adoption was associated with increased physician time devoted to patients and greater time expenditure on documentation, patients experienced decreased wait times. This suggests that EHR use streamlined the overall clinic flow without sacrificing physicians' time with the patient. The author's findings suggest that EHR implementation can be accomplished in an academic oculoplastics setting without negative impact on patient experience or reimbursement considerations.
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.