ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2026
Electronic Health Record Burden Among Gastroenterology Providers in a Large Tri-state Tertiary Referral Center.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeElectronic health record (EHR) use has resulted in new demands on providers, contributing to burnout. The EHR burden of gastroenterology (GI) providers is not well understood.
methodsEHR use data were retrospectively collected for GI providers from three tertiary referral centers during a 1-year period. Measures included overall time in the EHR including outside regular hours and performing specific activities (clinical review and in-basket) as well as quantification of efficiency, messaging, and documentation. A survey of EHR use, perceived burden, and burnout was distributed to providers. EHR burden was compared across provider gender, training, and subspecialty on a per appointment basis.
resultsEHR use of 347 providers over 31,000 clinic days and 170,000 appointments was analyzed with additional survey data from 95 providers. Female providers had more EHR time per appointment than males, longer documentation per appointment, and more time per completed in-basket message. Non-physician providers (NPPs) spent more EHR time per appointment than physicians including more time in clinical review and per in-basket message. Comparing subspecialty, hepatologists, IBD providers, and motility specialists had the most EHR time per appointment including more time in clinical review and outside scheduled hours with IBD and motility specialists receiving more patient advice messages per appointment. Survey results showed in-basket and documentation were the top stressors with over 30% of respondents reporting burnout.
conclusionHigher EHR burden was noted among hepatology, IBD, and motility specialists and NPPs with in-basket messages and documentation as key stressors. More work is needed to combat factors contributing to burnout.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41801633What 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.