Medical students' observations, practices, and attitudes regarding electronic health record documentation.

BACKGROUND: Medical students are increasingly documenting their patient notes in electronic health records (EHRs). Documentation short-cuts, such as copy-paste and templates, have raised concern among clinician-educators because they may perpetuate redundant, inaccurate, or even plagiarized notes. Little is known about medical students' experiences with copy-paste, templates and other "efficiency tools" in EHRs. PURPOSES: We sought to understand medical students' observations, practices, and attitudes regarding electronic documentation efficiency tools. METHODS: We surveyed 3rd-year medical students at one medical school. We asked about efficiency tools including copy-paste, templates, auto-inserted data, and "scribing" (documentation under a supervisor's name). RESULTS: Overall, 123 of 163 students (75%) responded; almost all frequently use an EHR for documentation. Eighty-six percent (102/119) reported at least sometimes observing residents copying data from other providers' notes and 60% (70/116) reported observing attending physicians doing so. Most students (95%, 113/119) reported copying from their own previous notes, and 22% (26/119) reported copying from residents. Only 10% (12/119) indicated that copying from other providers is acceptable, whereas 83% (98/118) believe copying from their own notes is acceptable. Most students use templates and auto-inserted data; 43% (51/120) reported documenting while signed in under an attending's name. Greater use of documentation efficiency tools is associated with plans to enter a procedural specialty and with lack of awareness of the medical school copy-paste policy. CONCLUSIONS: Students frequently use a range of efficiency tools to document in the electronic health record, most commonly copying their own notes. Although the vast majority of students believe it is unacceptable to copy-paste from other providers, most have observed clinical supervisors doing so.

The effect of an end-of-clerkship review session on NBME psychiatry subject exam scores.

OBJECTIVE: The NBME Psychiatry Subject Examination (PSE) is used throughout North America to test MS-III end-of-clerkship knowledge; yet, literature on PSE preparatory methods remains sparse. This study assesses the effect of a curriculum intervention on NBME PSE scores. METHOD: An optional 1.5-hour review session and accompanying fill-in-the-blank handout was offered to 62 MS-III students 3 days before their exam. Students who did not attend the session were e-mailed the handout with completed answers. The primary outcome measure was a change in scores, with students in the previous year serving as the control group. RESULTS: The average raw PSE score of students offered the review session was 84.53, versus 77.15 for matched controls (p <0.0001). The effect size for the intervention was 0.89. CONCLUSION: This study may suggest that offering a comprehensive review session to third-year medical students 3 days before their NBME PSE significantly improves their scores.

Work hours regulations for house staff in psychiatry: bad or good for residency training?

OBJECTIVE: The movement to limit work hours for house staff has gained momentum in recent years. The authors set out to review the literature on work hours reform, particularly as it applies to psychiatric residency training, and to provide two different viewpoints on the controversy. METHODS: The authors present the historical background of work hours reform in the United States and review recent literature about resident work hours limitations. Using a debate format, the authors discuss whether the new regulations are having a positive or negative impact on residency training in psychiatry. RESULTS: Drs. Lomonaco and Auchincloss argue that currently-existing work hours restrictions may have unintended consequences for the health of patients and an untoward impact on residents' professional development and academic medicine's overall structure. Dr. Rasminsky argues that work hours restrictions do not go far enough in protecting residents and patients from the harmful effects of fatigue, and that our definition of professionalism needs to be reexamined in light of emerging scientific literature. CONCLUSION: There should be some limitation on resident work hours, with exact numbers to be determined by growing scientific knowledge about the effects of prolonged wakefulness. More study is needed, particularly in the area of psychiatric residency training.