ArticleOphthalmology science2021
Clinical Documentation During Scribed and Non-scribed Ophthalmology Office Visits.
Article in Ophthalmology science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Applications of natural language processing in ophthalmology: present and future.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeObserve the impact of employing scribes on documentation efficiency in ophthalmology clinics.
designSingle-center retrospective cohort study.
participantsA total of 29,997 outpatient visits conducted by seven attending ophthalmologists between 1/1/2018 and 12/31/2019 were included in the study; 18,483 with a scribe present during the encounter and 11,514 without a scribe present.
interventionUse of a scribe.
main outcome measuresTotal physician documentation time, physician documentation time during and after the visit, visit length, time to chart closure, note length, and percent of note text edited by physician.
resultsTotal physician documentation time was significantly less when working with a scribe (mean ± SD, 4.7 ± 2.9 vs. 7.6 ± 3.8 minutes/note,
conclusionsScribe use was associated with increased documentation efficiency through lower total documentation time and less note editing by physicians. However, the use of a scribe was also associated with longer office visit lengths and time to chart closure. The variability in the impact of scribe use on different measures of documentation efficiency leaves unanswered questions about best practices for the implementation of scribes, and warrants further study of effective scribe use.
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.