Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40769172›Full record

ArticleApplied clinical informatics2025

Exploring Provider Perceptions and Attitudes toward Copy-Paste and Copy-Forward in Clinical Documentation.

Matthew Hudkins, Jeffrey A Gold, Sky Corby, Joan Ash, Vishnu Mohan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

5 authors.

Matthew HudkinsDivision of Pediatric Critical Care, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States.
Jeffrey A GoldDivision of Medical Informatics, Clinical Epidemiology and Translational Data Science, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States.
Sky CorbyDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States.
Joan AshDivision of Medical Informatics, Clinical Epidemiology and Translational Data Science, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States.
Vishnu MohanDivision of Medical Informatics, Clinical Epidemiology and Translational Data Science, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States.

Funding

AHRQ HHS R18 HS029345
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Copy-paste (CP) and copy-forward (CF) are common electronic health record (EHR) documentation tools that purportedly improve provider efficiency, but they can also contribute to documentation burden while increasing note bloat and errors. Our understanding of provider perceptions of these tools remains limited.This study aimed to increase understanding of provider perceptions and self-reported usage patterns of CP and CF across different clinical environments and provider roles, including the impact of these tools on clinical documentation quality and efficiency.A survey was developed and administered at a large academic medical center from December 2022 to March 2023. The survey was distributed to medical students, trainees, and faculty. Questions addressed documentation practices, perceived benefits and risks of CP/CF, and attitudes toward future use. Data were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively.Among 913 respondents (22-28% response rate across levels of training), 82% reported using CP, and 52% used CF in clinical documentation. Usage varied significantly by environment, with the highest utilization in inpatient primary services (91% CP, 68% CF) and the lowest in emergency departments (70% CP, 14% CF). Eighty-six percent of providers believed that CP/CF improved efficiency. A majority felt that CP (59-70%) and CF (69-76%) worsened several types of documentation errors. Providers showed stronger acceptance of copying from their own notes (90% CP, 82% CF) compared with others' notes (61% CP, 47% CF).Self-reported use of CP and CF is high by providers, driven by perception of improved efficiency despite recognition that these tools contribute to documentation errors and note bloat. Use varies by practice environment. CP is viewed more favorably compared with CF, as is copying one's own documentation compared with that of another provider. This suggests that solutions should be nuanced and workflow-specific. Future interventions must balance documentation quality with efficiency and take the practice environment and provider role into account.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelDocumentationElectronic Health RecordsHealth PersonnelFemaleHumansSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID40769172
PMCPMC12328030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.