ArticleCureus2022
Provider Perspective on Being Recorded During Emergency Medicine Discharge Conversations.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cross-sectional survey of medical professionals' attitudes toward recorded doctor-patient conversations.Journal of public health research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDespite the possible benefits of provider-recorded visit summaries for patient use, the utilization of such recordings has yet to be adopted as standard care in most specialities. The objective of this study was to investigate the perspectives of emergency department (ED) providers regarding the utilization of audio or video recordings during ED patient encounters, particularly during discharge conversations.
methodsThis study utilized an eight-question survey pooling the opinions of various emergency medicine nurses, advanced practitioners, residents, and physicians within a local Ohio hospital system. Providers from multiple healthcare centers were studied. Study data were collected using an anonymous online survey database. Results: Fifty-seven providers were surveyed. Twenty (35%) agreed that patients had the right to record medical conversations, and 36 (63%) cited potential legal liability as their reason for hesitation. Twenty-five providers (43.9%) answered that no video or audio recordings should be provided at discharge. There was no significant difference in secondary outcomes comparing between demographic categories of age, sex, and practice facility type (p>0.05). Conclusion: Providers who responded to this survey did not feel comfortable being recorded during any portion of their patient encounter, even when providing discharge instructions. Our study showed that there is at least some hesitation on behalf of ED providers based on fear of legal retaliation or violation of HIPPA. However, more research in this area is necessary for recordings to become the standard of care during ED encounters.
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.