Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39530053›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2024

Inbox message prioritization and management approaches in primary care.

Nate C Apathy, Katelyn Hicks, Lucy Bocknek, Garrett Zabala, Katharine Adams, Kylie M Gomes, Tara Saggar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Primary care staff members' experiences with managing electronic health record inbox messages.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025
    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

7 authors.

Nate C ApathyHealth Policy & Management, University of Maryland School of Public Health, College Park, MD 20742, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7775-8544
Katelyn HicksGeorgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC 20007, United States.
Lucy BocknekMedStar Health National Center for Human Factors in Healthcare, MedStar Health Research Institute, Columbia, MD 21044, United States.
Garrett ZabalaMedStar Health National Center for Human Factors in Healthcare, MedStar Health Research Institute, Columbia, MD 21044, United States.
Katharine AdamsMedStar Health Center for Biomedical Informatics and Data Science, MedStar Health Research Institute, Columbia, MD 21044, United States.
Kylie M GomesMedStar Health National Center for Human Factors in Healthcare, MedStar Health Research Institute, Columbia, MD 21044, United States.
Tara SaggarMedStar Health, Columbia, MD 21044, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Patient messaging to clinicians has dramatically increased since the pandemic, leading to informatics efforts to categorize incoming messages. We examined how message prioritization (as distinct from categorization) occurs in primary care, and how primary care clinicians managed their inbox workflows. Materials and Methods: Semi-structured interviews and inbox work observations with 11 primary care clinicians at MedStar Health. We analyzed interview and observation transcripts and identified themes and subthemes related to prioritization and inbox workflows. Results: Clinicians widely reported that they did not prioritize messages due to time constraints and the necessity of attending to all messages, which made any prioritization purely additive to overall inbox time. We identified 6 themes and 14 subthemes related to managing inbox workloads. The top themes were (1) establishing workflow norms with different teams, primarily medical assistants (MAs); (2) boundary-setting with patients, other clinicians, and with themselves; and (3) message classification heuristics that allowed clinicians to mentally categorize messages that required follow-up, messages that could be quickly deleted or acknowledged, and purely informational messages that ranged in clinical utility from tedious to valuable for care coordination. Discussion: Time constraints in primary care prevent clinicians from prioritizing their inbox messages for increased efficiency. Involvement of MAs and co-located staff was successful; however, standardization was needed for messaging workflows that involved centralized resources like call centers. Organizations should consider ways in which they can support the establishment and maintenance of boundaries, to avoid this responsibility falling entirely on clinicians. Conclusion: Clinicians generally lack the time to prioritize patient messages. Future research should explore the efficacy of collaborative inbox workflows for time-savings and management of patient messages.

Indexed as

patient messagingphysician burnoutphysician inboxqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID39530053
PMCPMC11552621

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.