ArticleApplied clinical informatics2024
Standardization of Emergency Department Clinical Note Templates: A Retrospective Analysis across an Integrated Health System.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barriers and Facilitators to Electronic Health Record Documentation Compliance in Multidisciplinary Hospital Settings: A Scoping Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
- Article
- Optimizing Documentation Integrity of Ophthalmic Diagnostic Test Interpretation through Electronic Health Record Clinical Decision Support.Applied clinical informatics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveClinical documentation is essential for conveying medical decision-making, communication between providers and patients, and capturing quality, billing, and regulatory measures during emergency department (ED) visits. Growing evidence suggests the benefits of note template standardization; however, variations in documentation practices are common. The primary objective of this study is to measure the utilization and coding performance of a standardized ED note template implemented across a nine-hospital health system.
methodsThis was a retrospective study before and after the implementation of a standardized ED note template. A multi-disciplinary group consensus was built around standardized note elements, provider note workflows within the electronic health record (EHR), and how to incorporate newly required medical decision-making elements. The primary outcomes measured included the proportion of ED visits using standardized note templates, and the distribution of billing codes in the 6 months before and after implementation.
resultsIn the preimplementation period, a total of six legacy ED note templates were being used across nine EDs, with the most used template accounting for approximately 36% of ED visits. Marked variations in documentation elements were noted across six legacy templates. After the implementation, 82% of ED visits system-wide used a single standardized note template. Following implementation, we observed a 1% increase in the proportion of ED visits coded as highest acuity and an unchanged proportion coded as second highest acuity.
conclusionWe observed a greater than twofold increase in the use of a standardized ED note template across a nine-hospital health system in anticipation of the new 2023 coding guidelines. The development and utilization of a standardized note template format relied heavily on multi-disciplinary stakeholder engagement to inform design that worked for varied documentation practices within the EHR. After the implementation of a standardized note template, we observed better-than-anticipated coding performance.
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.