Cargando…

Electronic health record note review in an outpatient specialty clinic: who is looking?

Note entry and review in electronic health records (EHRs) are time-consuming. While some clinics have adopted team-based models of note entry, how these models have impacted note review is unknown in outpatient specialty clinics such as ophthalmology. We hypothesized that ophthalmologists and ancill...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Jimmy S, Hribar, Michelle R, Goldstein, Isaac H, Rule, Adam, Lin, Wei-Chun, Dusek, Haley, Chiang, Michael F
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8325486/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34345803
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooab044
_version_ 1783731572922384384
author Chen, Jimmy S
Hribar, Michelle R
Goldstein, Isaac H
Rule, Adam
Lin, Wei-Chun
Dusek, Haley
Chiang, Michael F
author_facet Chen, Jimmy S
Hribar, Michelle R
Goldstein, Isaac H
Rule, Adam
Lin, Wei-Chun
Dusek, Haley
Chiang, Michael F
author_sort Chen, Jimmy S
collection PubMed
description Note entry and review in electronic health records (EHRs) are time-consuming. While some clinics have adopted team-based models of note entry, how these models have impacted note review is unknown in outpatient specialty clinics such as ophthalmology. We hypothesized that ophthalmologists and ancillary staff review very few notes. Using audit log data from 9775 follow-up office visits in an academic ophthalmology clinic, we found ophthalmologists reviewed a median of 1 note per visit (2.6 ± 5.3% of available notes), while ancillary staff reviewed a median of 2 notes per visit (4.1 ± 6.2% of available notes). While prior ophthalmic office visit notes were the most frequently reviewed note type, ophthalmologists and staff reviewed no such notes in 51% and 31% of visits, respectively. These results highlight the collaborative nature of note review and raise concerns about how cumbersome EHR designs affect efficient note review and the utility of prior notes in ophthalmic clinical care.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8325486
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83254862021-08-02 Electronic health record note review in an outpatient specialty clinic: who is looking? Chen, Jimmy S Hribar, Michelle R Goldstein, Isaac H Rule, Adam Lin, Wei-Chun Dusek, Haley Chiang, Michael F JAMIA Open Brief Communications Note entry and review in electronic health records (EHRs) are time-consuming. While some clinics have adopted team-based models of note entry, how these models have impacted note review is unknown in outpatient specialty clinics such as ophthalmology. We hypothesized that ophthalmologists and ancillary staff review very few notes. Using audit log data from 9775 follow-up office visits in an academic ophthalmology clinic, we found ophthalmologists reviewed a median of 1 note per visit (2.6 ± 5.3% of available notes), while ancillary staff reviewed a median of 2 notes per visit (4.1 ± 6.2% of available notes). While prior ophthalmic office visit notes were the most frequently reviewed note type, ophthalmologists and staff reviewed no such notes in 51% and 31% of visits, respectively. These results highlight the collaborative nature of note review and raise concerns about how cumbersome EHR designs affect efficient note review and the utility of prior notes in ophthalmic clinical care. Oxford University Press 2021-07-31 /pmc/articles/PMC8325486/ /pubmed/34345803 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooab044 Text en © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Brief Communications
Chen, Jimmy S
Hribar, Michelle R
Goldstein, Isaac H
Rule, Adam
Lin, Wei-Chun
Dusek, Haley
Chiang, Michael F
Electronic health record note review in an outpatient specialty clinic: who is looking?
title Electronic health record note review in an outpatient specialty clinic: who is looking?
title_full Electronic health record note review in an outpatient specialty clinic: who is looking?
title_fullStr Electronic health record note review in an outpatient specialty clinic: who is looking?
title_full_unstemmed Electronic health record note review in an outpatient specialty clinic: who is looking?
title_short Electronic health record note review in an outpatient specialty clinic: who is looking?
title_sort electronic health record note review in an outpatient specialty clinic: who is looking?
topic Brief Communications
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8325486/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34345803
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooab044
work_keys_str_mv AT chenjimmys electronichealthrecordnotereviewinanoutpatientspecialtyclinicwhoislooking
AT hribarmicheller electronichealthrecordnotereviewinanoutpatientspecialtyclinicwhoislooking
AT goldsteinisaach electronichealthrecordnotereviewinanoutpatientspecialtyclinicwhoislooking
AT ruleadam electronichealthrecordnotereviewinanoutpatientspecialtyclinicwhoislooking
AT linweichun electronichealthrecordnotereviewinanoutpatientspecialtyclinicwhoislooking
AT dusekhaley electronichealthrecordnotereviewinanoutpatientspecialtyclinicwhoislooking
AT chiangmichaelf electronichealthrecordnotereviewinanoutpatientspecialtyclinicwhoislooking