ArticleJAMIA open2021
Electronic health record note review in an outpatient specialty clinic: who is looking?
Article in JAMIA open, 2021. 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.
- Evaluation and practical application of prompt-driven ChatGPTs for EMR generation.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
- Using event logs to observe interactions with electronic health records: an updated scoping review shows increasing use of vendor-derived measures.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Article
- Variations in Electronic Health Record-Based Definitions of Diabetic Retinopathy Cohorts: A Literature Review and Quantitative Analysis.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Note entry and review in electronic health records (EHRs) are time-consuming. While some clinics have adopted team-based models of note entry, how these models have impacted note review is unknown in outpatient specialty clinics such as ophthalmology. We hypothesized that ophthalmologists and ancillary staff review very few notes. Using audit log data from 9775 follow-up office visits in an academic ophthalmology clinic, we found ophthalmologists reviewed a median of 1 note per visit (2.6 ± 5.3% of available notes), while ancillary staff reviewed a median of 2 notes per visit (4.1 ± 6.2% of available notes). While prior ophthalmic office visit notes were the most frequently reviewed note type, ophthalmologists and staff reviewed no such notes in 51% and 31% of visits, respectively. These results highlight the collaborative nature of note review and raise concerns about how cumbersome EHR designs affect efficient note review and the utility of prior notes in ophthalmic clinical care.
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.