Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32808212›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2020

How Physicians Spend Their Work Time: an Ecological Momentary Assessment.

Fabrizio Toscano, Eloise O'Donnell, Joan E Broderick, Marcella May, Pippa Tucker, Mark A Unruh, Gabriele Messina, Lawrence P Casalino

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Interprofessional team-based primary care practice and preventive cancer screening: evidence from Family Health Teams in Ontario, Canada.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Can We Help Our Physicians and Our Profession?Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2025
    Article
  12. The limitations of narrative medicine.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The extent of interruptions to primary care medical officers' consultations in the Western Cape.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2024
    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

8 authors.

Fabrizio ToscanoDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. ftoscanomd@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-6886-580X
Eloise O'DonnellDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Joan E BroderickCenter for Social & Economic Research, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Marcella MayCenter for Social & Economic Research, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Pippa TuckerCenter for Social & Economic Research, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Mark A UnruhDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Gabriele MessinaDepartment of Molecular and Developmental Medicine, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Lawrence P CasalinoDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle is known about how physicians spend their work time.

objectiveTo determine how physicians in outpatient care spend their time at work, using an innovative method: ecological momentary assessment (EMA).

designPhysician activity was measured via EMA, using a smartphone app.

participantsTwenty-eight practices across 16 US states. Sixty-one physicians: general internal medicine, family medicine, non-interventional cardiology, orthopedics. MAIN MEASURES: Proportions of time spent on 14 activities within 6 broad categories of work: direct patient care (including both face-to-face care and other patient care-related activities), electronic health record (EHR) input, administration, teaching/supervising, personal time, and other. KEY

resultsAfter excluding personal time, physicians spent 66.5% of their time on direct patient care (23.6% multitasking with use of the EHR and 42.9% without the EHR), 20.7% on EHR input alone, 7.7% on administrative activities, and 5.0% on other activities (0.6% using the EHR). In total, physicians spent 44.9% of their time on the EHR. LIMITATIONS: Unable to measure time spent at home on the EHR or other work tasks; participating physicians were not a random sample of US physicians.

conclusionsThe efficiency of highly trained professionals spending only two-thirds of their time on direct patient care may be questioned. EHR use continues to account for a large proportion of physician time. Further attempts should be made to redesign both EHRs and physician work processes.

Indexed as

Ecological Momentary AssessmentPhysiciansAmbulatory CareElectronic Health RecordsFamily PracticeHumanselectronic medical recordsphysicians time

Identifiers

PMID32808212
PMCPMC7661623

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.