ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021
Writing Practices Associated With Electronic Progress Notes and the Preferences of Those Who Read Them: Descriptive Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing generative artificial intelligence for clinical summarization: a blinded comparison study of automated versus human care planning synopses.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Copy Tools in the Electronic Health Record: Perceptions, Implications, and Future Directions.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Nurses' Perceptions and Recommendations on the Safe Use of "Copy and Paste" Function in an Electronic Medical Record of a National Tertiary Hospital.Acta medica Philippina · 2025Article
- The Voice of the Patient and the Electronic Health Record.Applied clinical informatics · 2023Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHospital progress notes can serve as an important communication tool. However, they are criticized for their length, preserved content, and for the time physicians spend writing them.
objectiveWe aimed to describe hospital progress note content, writing and reading practices, and the preferences of those who create and read them prior to the implementation of a new electronic health record system.
methodsUsing a sample of hospital progress notes from 1000 randomly selected admissions, we measured note length, similarity of content in successive daily notes for the same patient, the time notes were signed and read, and who read them. We conducted focus group sessions with note writers, readers, and clinical leaders to understand their preferences.
resultsWe analyzed 4938 inpatient progress notes from 418 authors. The average length was 886 words, and most were in the Assessment & Plan note section. A total of 29% of notes (n=1432) were signed after 4 PM. Notes signed later in the day were read less often. Notes were highly similar from one day to the next, and 26% (23/88) had clinical risk associated with the preserved content. Note content of the highest value varied according to the reader's professional role.
conclusionsProgress note length varied widely. Notes were often signed late in the day when they were read less often and were highly similar to the note from the previous day. Measuring note length, signing time, when and by whom notes are read, and the amount and safety of preserved content will be useful metrics for measuring how the new electronic health record system is used, and can aid improvements.
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.