Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41705224›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2026

Nested order panels for adult primary care modestly improves ordering efficiency among high utilizers.

Andrew D Schechtman, Samantha M R Kling, Donn W Garvert, Jessica Y Lin, Tait Shanafelt, Marcy Winget, Christopher Sharp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Andrew D SchechtmanUniversity Medical Partners (a Partner of Stanford Medicine), Newark, CA 94560, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1091-2345
Samantha M R KlingDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9169-763X
Donn W GarvertDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0827-9611
Jessica Y LinUniversity Medical Partners (a Partner of Stanford Medicine), Newark, CA 94560, United States.
Tait ShanafeltDivision of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, United States.
Marcy WingetDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5893-280X
Christopher SharpDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7169-6904

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Electronic health record (EHR) order preference lists and order sets potentially improve efficiency but have limited utility in complex primary care settings. We assessed adoption, impact on ordering efficiency, and clinician perceptions of a comprehensive set of nested order panels (xOrders) for adult primary care. Methods: In Results: xOrders were used 536 (SD, 245) times/week and by 57(15) clinicians/week in Discussion and Conclusions: Despite yielding time savings and positive clinician feedback, the xOrder intervention showed limited adoption and impact, suggesting the need for expanded content and increased adoption to realize larger efficiency gains.

Indexed as

clinician burnoutefficiencyelectronic health recordfamily medicineinternal medicineorderingordersprimary care

Identifiers

PMID41705224
PMCPMC12907020

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.