Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41418294›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025

Copy Tools in the Electronic Health Record: Perceptions, Implications, and Future Directions.

Sky Corby, Joan S Ash, Rebecca M Jungbauer, Gretchen Scholl, Sarah Florig, Vishnu Mohan, Jeffrey A Gold

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Sky CorbyDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6493-0774
Joan S AshDivision of Informatics, Clinical Epidemiology, and Translational Data Science, Department of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0017-3035
Rebecca M JungbauerDivision of Informatics, Clinical Epidemiology, and Translational Data Science, Department of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2504-7054
Gretchen SchollDivision of Undergraduate Medical Education, Department of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8063-6716
Sarah FlorigCollege of Medicine, Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6906-2689
Vishnu MohanDivision of Informatics, Clinical Epidemiology, and Translational Data Science, Department of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3873-4969
Jeffrey A GoldDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6683-9907

Funding

AHRQ HHS R18 HS029345
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic health records (EHRs) can aid in provider efficiency, but may also lead to unintended consequences, such as documentation burden and increased length of notes. To combat issues related to documentation, copying and pasting (CP) and copying or carrying forward (CF) are tools that have been used to aid in documentation burden. Multiple studies have identified the benefits and challenges of using these tools; however, few studies have identified the unintended consequences of CP and CF, and how the adoption of these tools may affect users.

objectiveThe objective was to describe providers' perceptions and use of copying tools available in the EHR and describe their suggestions for improvement on these copying tools.

methodsResearch team members conducted semistructured interviews with faculty members, advanced practice providers, residents or fellow trainees, and medical students at a single academic health sciences center. The Diffusion of Innovations Theory of Unintended Consequences guided the analysis and interpretation of interview results.

resultsA total of 22 semistructured interviews were conducted in 2023 and analyzed during 2024. The findings showed that respondents use and value these tools for efficiency and communication purposes. The negative unintended consequences include inaccuracies and errors in documentation and increased patient safety risks. Some respondents experience inner angst or moral injury related to using CP/CF, but they feel that they must use them to satisfy organizational requirements surrounding documentation. The respondents suggested that artificial intelligence will likely help improve documentation tools, as would further training around these types of documentation tools.

conclusionsSome respondents noted feeling both internal and external pressures that influenced when and how they use CP/CF. Respondents noted that they value EHR copying tools for efficiency purposes, but they also understand the risks involved. This tension may lead to moral angst or moral injury. They offered numerous suggestions for lowering the risk, especially by improving the documentation capabilities of the EHR through artificial intelligence. Future research should investigate both technical and educational solutions to relieve the documentation burden and moral angst they are experiencing.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelDocumentationElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicPerceptionattitude of health personnelcarry-forwardclinical communicationclinical documentationcopy-pasteelectronic documentationelectronic health recordshuman factorsqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID41418294
PMCPMC12759298

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.