ArticleNeurology. Education2025
Education Research: Exploring the Impact of Standardized, Condition-Specific Note Templates on Quality Metrics and Efficiency in Multiple Resident Clinics.
Article in Neurology. Education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differences in Goals of Care and Advance Care Planning Note Templates.Journal of pain and symptom management · 2026Article
- Optimal approach to standardized documentation in epilepsy clinics: A scoping review.Epilepsia · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Electronic health record documentation burden negatively affects physician satisfaction and patient care. Although well-constructed notes are important for care quality and safety, most note templates are created and maintained by individual physicians, leading to inefficiency and variable note quality. This study aimed to assess whether standardized, condition-specific note templates could enhance the efficiency and quality of notes written by neurology residents in the outpatient setting. Methods: In a quality improvement study with a randomized, nonblinded design from July 2021 to June 2022, neurology residents were assigned standardized templates for epilepsy, headache, and Parkinson disease (PD) in 2 outpatient clinics. The standardized templates were created with input from specialists in these disorders. Efficiency was gauged based on the time and characters involved in note writing while quality was assessed by adherence to American Academy of Neurology quality metrics for each condition through chart review. A qualitative survey gathered resident opinions on the templates. Linear regression models were used in the efficiency and quality analyses. Results: The study included 23 of 34 neurology residents. Templates were used in 36% of eligible encounters over the first 6 months of the study and 65% over the last 6 months. No significant difference in time spent on note writing was observed between the template and nontemplate groups. While both groups showed similar quality measures across most domains, the template group documented quality measures more consistently for driving status in epilepsy (92% vs 53%, Discussion: Standardized, condition-specific templates improved documentation of quality metrics without increasing time spent. Despite initial low uptake of template use, an increase was observed over time, indicating potential for wider acceptance with implementation efforts. These templates, updated and maintained by subject matter experts, serve as an opportunity to incorporate quality care checklists and knowledge into a clinician's workflow. This warrants further research into template implementation and its effects on care quality and education for neurologists and generalists.
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.