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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |