ArticleDeutsche medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)2024
[Impact of legal documentation requirements on physician practice using a regional specialty hospital as an example: an inventory].
Article in Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- [Entrustable professional activities-A paradigm shift in the surgical training from quantity to quality].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Communication on Rounds: The Role of Rounds Culture and Communication in Patient Care and Teaching.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2025Review
- [University trauma surgery and orthopedics: where is the journey going to?]Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 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
backgroundDoctors in German hospitals are critical of their working conditions. They complain about long working hours, inadequate remuneration for their work, poor training and development opportunities, and increasing time spent on administrative tasks. As these points of criticism are largely based on subjective perception, in the present study we documented in detail the workflows of physicians in a major regional hospital, determined the time taken for the workflows, and performed a statistical evaluation of the data.
methodsNine doctors from the specialties of internal medicine, surgery, and anesthesia/intensive care medicine were observed during their shifts for a total period of 216 hours at an urban hospital in Germany. All of the tasks performed by the doctors were recorded in an observation protocol.
resultsThe time spent daily on documentation by doctors of all specialties was on average 93.1 ± 23.4 minutes, accounting for 19.4 % of a doctor's working hours. The specialists who spent the longest period of time on documentation were internists (120.2 ± 15.0 minutes; 25 %). During an eight-hour working day, computers were used on average for 123.5 ± 44.4 minutes; surgeons spent the shortest period of time on computers (71.5 ± 16.6 minutes). The direct patient-related work time (excluding the time spent on operations) was considerably lower (33.8 + 22.7 minutes; 7 %) than the time spent daily on documentation, increased to 80.7 ± 62.9 minutes when the time expended on actual surgical tasks was taken into account, and was then similar to the time spent on documentation (93.1 minutes). DISCUSSION: This pilot study was the first to determine, in real time, the work processes of doctors from different specialties at a German hospital. We noted a disparity between administrative and patient-related tasks in the in-patient setting. Legal and economic requirements exert a negative impact on medical care. We need to develop strategies for effective utilization of medical resources and for ensuring a high standard of medical care.
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.