Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36173361›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2022

Using event logs to observe interactions with electronic health records: an updated scoping review shows increasing use of vendor-derived measures.

Adam Rule, Edward R Melnick, Nate C Apathy

Erratum issuedAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing 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

41 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Quantifying manual editing time in autocontouring via audit log analysis.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Adam RuleInformation School, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2441-3320
Edward R MelnickEmergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6509-9537
Nate C ApathyMedStar Health National Center for Human Factors in Healthcare, MedStar Health Research Institute, District of Columbia, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7775-8544

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
Postdoctoral Training in Health Services ResearchT32HS026116 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI GROENEVELD, PETER W., WERNER, RACHEL M · 2018 to 2024
$3.8M
AHRQ HHS T32 HS026116
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this article is to compare the aims, measures, methods, limitations, and scope of studies that employ vendor-derived and investigator-derived measures of electronic health record (EHR) use, and to assess measure consistency across studies. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe searched PubMed for articles published between July 2019 and December 2021 that employed measures of EHR use derived from EHR event logs. We coded the aims, measures, methods, limitations, and scope of each article and compared articles employing vendor-derived and investigator-derived measures.

resultsOne hundred and two articles met inclusion criteria; 40 employed vendor-derived measures, 61 employed investigator-derived measures, and 1 employed both. Studies employing vendor-derived measures were more likely than those employing investigator-derived measures to observe EHR use only in ambulatory settings (83% vs 48%, P = .002) and only by physicians or advanced practice providers (100% vs 54% of studies, P < .001). Studies employing vendor-derived measures were also more likely to measure durations of EHR use (P < .001 for 6 different activities), but definitions of measures such as time outside scheduled hours varied widely. Eight articles reported measure validation. The reported limitations of vendor-derived measures included measure transparency and availability for certain clinical settings and roles. DISCUSSION: Vendor-derived measures are increasingly used to study EHR use, but only by certain clinical roles. Although poorly validated and variously defined, both vendor- and investigator-derived measures of EHR time are widely reported.

conclusionThe number of studies using event logs to observe EHR use continues to grow, but with inconsistent measure definitions and significant differences between studies that employ vendor-derived and investigator-derived measures.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsPhysiciansCommerceHumansaudit logelectronic health recordevent log

Identifiers

PMID36173361
PMCPMC9748581

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.