Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35879072›Full record

ArticleAnnals of family medicine

Use of the Electronic Health Record During Clinical Encounters: An Experience Survey.

Ellen C Meltzer, Kelly S Vorseth, Ivana T Croghan, Yu-Hui H Chang, Carolyn Mead-Harvey, Lori A Johnston, Racquel D Strader, Kathleen J Yost, Lisa A Marks, Kenneth G Poole

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Measuring Documentation Burden in Healthcare.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Ellen C MeltzerDivision of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona meltzer.ellen@mayo.edu.
Kelly S VorsethOffice of Patient Experience, Mayo Clinic, Sheikh Shakhbout Medical City, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Ivana T CroghanDivision of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Yu-Hui H ChangDivision of Clinical Trials and Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Carolyn Mead-HarveyDivision of Clinical Trials and Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Lori A JohnstonOffice of Patient Experience, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
Racquel D StraderOffice of Patient Experience, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
Kathleen J YostDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Lisa A MarksLibrary Services, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Kenneth G PooleOffice of Patient Experience, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
Mayo Clinic in Arizona · USMayo Clinic in Florida · USSheikh Shakhbout Medical City · AEWinnMed · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeUse of the electronic health record (EHR) during face-to-face clinical encounters affects communication, and prior research has been inconclusive regarding its effect. This survey study assessed health care practitioner use of EHR-specific communication skills and patient and practitioner experiences and attitudes regarding EHR use during clinical encounters.

methodsFor this US-based study, we distributed previously validated surveys to practitioners and adult patients (aged >18 years) at academic primary care practices from July 1, 2018 through August 31, 2018. The electronic practitioner survey was completed first; a paper survey was administered to patients after appointments. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and the Cochran-Armitage test was used to assess for associations between key variables.

resultsThe practitioner response was 72.9% (43/59); patient response, 45.2% (452/1,000). Practitioners reported maintaining less eye contact (79.1%), listening less carefully (53.5%), focusing less on patients (65.1%), and visits feeling less personal (62.8%). However, patients reported that practitioners provided sufficient eye contact (96.8%) and listened carefully (97.0%); they disagreed that practitioners focused less on them (86.7%) or that visits felt less personal (87.2%). Patients thought EHR use was positive (91.7%); only one-third of practitioners (37.2%) thought that patients would agree with that statement. Practitioners reported stress, burnout, and a lack of sufficient time for EHR documentation.

conclusionsA discrepancy existed in this study between patient and practitioner experiences and attitudes about EHR use, which appeared to negatively affect the experience of health care practitioners but not patients. Organizations should adopt formal strategies to improve practitioner experiences with EHR use.

Indexed as

Burnout, ProfessionalElectronic Health RecordsAdultCommunicationDocumentationHumansSurveys and Questionnairescommunication skillselectronic health recordpatient experienceprimary health care

Identifiers

PMID35879072
PMCPMC9328709
OpenAlexW4287733679

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.