Perceptions of Oncologists About Sharing Clinic Notes with Patients.

In a large survey (n = 809) conducted to understand how oncologists differ from nononcologists regarding routinely sharing visit notes with patients, oncologists were less likely to agree patient safety would improve (p = .03) or that patients would be offended after reading notes (p = .01); however, they agreed with nononcologists that sharing notes would lead to less candid documentation (69% vs. 73%; p = .39). Oncologists share a high level of worry about the impact of sharing notes on documentation practices, a concern that will need to be addressed as the practice of sharing visit notes expands to cancer care.

Higher accuracy of complex medication reconciliation through improved design of electronic tools.

Objective: Investigate the accuracy of 2 different medication reconciliation tools integrated into electronic health record systems (EHRs) using a cognitively demanding scenario and complex medication history. Materials and Methods: Seventeen physicians reconciled medication lists for a polypharmacy patient using 2 EHRs in a simulation study. The lists contained 3 types of discrepancy and were transmitted between the systems via a Continuity of Care Document. Participants updated each EHR and their interactions were recorded and analyzed for the number and type of errors. Results: Participants made 748 drug comparisons that resulted in 53 errors (93% accuracy): 12 using EHR2 (3% rate, 0-3 range) and 41 using EHR1 (11% rate, 0-9 range; P < .0001). Twelve clinicians made completely accurate reconciliations with EHR2 (71%) and 6 with EHR1 (35%). Most errors (28, 53%) occurred in medication entries containing discrepancies: 4 in EHR2 and 24 in EHR1 (P = .008). The order in which participants used the EHRs to complete the task did not affect the results. Discussion: Significantly fewer errors were made with EHR2, which presented lists in a side-by-side view, automatically grouped medications by therapeutic class and more effectively identified duplicates. Participants favored this design and indicated that they routinely used several workarounds in EHR1. Conclusion: Accurate assessment of the safety and effectiveness of electronic reconciliation tools requires rigorous testing and should prioritize complex rather than simpler tasks that are currently used for EHR certification and product demonstration. Higher accuracy of reconciliation is likely when tools are designed to better support cognitively demanding tasks.

Accuracy and Completeness of Clinical Coding Using ICD-10 for Ambulatory Visits.

This study describes a simulation of diagnostic coding using an EHR. Twenty-three ambulatory clinicians were asked to enter appropriate codes for six standardized scenarios with two different EHRs. Their interactions with the query interface were analyzed for patterns and variations in search strategies and the resulting sets of entered codes for accuracy and completeness. Just over a half of entered codes were appropriate for a given scenario and about a quarter were omitted. Crohn's disease and diabetes scenarios had the highest rate of inappropriate coding and code variation. The omission rate was higher for secondary than for primary visit diagnoses. Codes for immunization, dialysis dependence and nicotine dependence were the most often omitted. We also found a high rate of variation in the search terms used to query the EHR for the same diagnoses. Changes to the training of clinicians and improved design of EHR query modules may lower the rate of inappropriate and omitted codes.