Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34612825›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

Writing Practices Associated With Electronic Progress Notes and the Preferences of Those Who Read Them: Descriptive Study.

Thomas H Payne, Carolyn Keller, Pallavi Arora, Allison Brusati, Jesse Levin, Monica Salgaonkar, Xi Li, Jennifer Zech, A Fischer Lees

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

Thomas H Payne *Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3416-5474
Carolyn KellerDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7675-9617
Pallavi AroraDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8081-2679
Allison BrusatiDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4488-5333
Jesse LevinDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3692-8914
Monica SalgaonkarDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5745-8333
Xi LiUniversity of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1847-4154
Jennifer ZechColumbia University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8652-0784
A Fischer LeesDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8898-0047

Funding

University of Washington Biomedical Informatics and Data Science Research Training ProgramT15LM007442 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI JOHN H. GENNARI, Andrea L. Hartzler · 2002 to 2026
$19.6M
NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007442
6 · The paper itself

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

PhysiciansReadingDocumentationElectronic Health RecordsElectronicsHumansWritingclinical communicationcopy-pasteEHRelectronic documentationelectronic health recordshospitalhospital progress noteshuman factorspatient recordsphysician communicationworkflow

Identifiers

PMID34612825
PMCPMC8529482

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.