More Tethered to the EHR: EHR Workload Trends Among Academic Primary Care Physicians, 2019-2023.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate recent trends in primary care physician (PCP) electronic health record (EHR) workload. METHODS: This longitudinal study observed the EHR use of 141 academic PCPs over 4 years (May 2019 to March 2023). Ambulatory full-time equivalency (aFTE), visit volume, and panel size were evaluated. Electronic health record time and inbox message volume were measured per 8 hours of scheduled clinic appointments. RESULTS: From the pre-COVID-19 pandemic year (May 2019 to February 2020) to the most recent study year (April 2022 to March 2023), the average time PCPs spent in the EHR per 8 hours of scheduled clinic appointments increased (+28.4 minutes, 7.8%), as did time in orders (+23.1 minutes, 58.9%), inbox (+14.0 minutes, 24.4%), chart review (+7.2 minutes, 13.0%), notes (+2.9 minutes, 2.3%), outside scheduled hours on days with scheduled appointments (+6.4 minutes, 8.2%), and on unscheduled days (+13.6 minutes, 19.9%). Primary care physicians received more patient medical advice requests (+5.4 messages, 55.5%) and prescription messages (+2.3, 19.5%) per 8 hours of scheduled clinic appointments, but fewer patient calls (-2.8, -10.5%) and results messages (-0.3, -2.7%). While total time in the EHR continued to increase in the final study year (+7.7 minutes, 2.0%), inbox time decreased slightly from the year prior (-2.2 minutes, -3.0%). Primary care physicians' average aFTE decreased 5.2% from 0.66 to 0.63 over 4 years. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians' time in the EHR continues to grow. While PCPs' inbox time may be stabilizing, it is still substantially higher than pre-pandemic levels. It is imperative health systems develop strategies to change the EHR workload trajectory to minimize PCPs' occupational stress and mitigate unnecessary reductions in effective physician workforce resulting from the increased EHR burden.

Guidance for reporting analyses of metadata on electronic health record use.

INTRODUCTION: Research on how people interact with electronic health records (EHRs) increasingly involves the analysis of metadata on EHR use. These metadata can be recorded unobtrusively and capture EHR use at a scale unattainable through direct observation or self-reports. However, there is substantial variation in how metadata on EHR use are recorded, analyzed and described, limiting understanding, replication, and synthesis across studies. RECOMMENDATIONS: In this perspective, we provide guidance to those working with EHR use metadata by describing 4 common types, how they are recorded, and how they can be aggregated into higher-level measures of EHR use. We also describe guidelines for reporting analyses of EHR use metadata-or measures of EHR use derived from them-to foster clarity, standardization, and reproducibility in this emerging and critical area of research.

Association of Primary Care Physicians' Ambulatory Full-time Equivalencies With Time in the Electronic Health Record.

This cross-sectional study examines whether primary care physicians (PCPs) in the clinic part-time have reduced electronic health record (EHR) time commensurate with their clinical hours.

Refining Vendor-Defined Measures to Accurately Quantify EHR Workload Outside Time Scheduled With Patients.

Accurately quantifying clinician time spent on electronic health record (EHR) activities outside the time scheduled with patients is critical for understanding occupational stress associated with ambulatory clinic environments. We make 3 recommendations regarding EHR workload measures that are intended to capture time working in the EHR outside time scheduled with patients, formally defined as work outside of work (WOW): (1) separate all time working in the EHR outside of time scheduled with patients from time working in the EHR during time scheduled with patients, (2) do not exclude any time before or after scheduled time with patients, and (3) encourage the EHR vendor and research communities to develop and standardize validated, vendor-agnostic methods for measuring active EHR use. Attributing all EHR work outside time scheduled with patients to WOW, regardless of when it occurs, will produce an objective and standardized measure better suited for use in efforts to reduce burnout, set policy, and facilitate research.

Using event logs to observe interactions with electronic health records: an updated scoping review shows increasing use of vendor-derived measures.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to compare the aims, measures, methods, limitations, and scope of studies that employ vendor-derived and investigator-derived measures of electronic health record (EHR) use, and to assess measure consistency across studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed for articles published between July 2019 and December 2021 that employed measures of EHR use derived from EHR event logs. We coded the aims, measures, methods, limitations, and scope of each article and compared articles employing vendor-derived and investigator-derived measures. RESULTS: One hundred and two articles met inclusion criteria; 40 employed vendor-derived measures, 61 employed investigator-derived measures, and 1 employed both. Studies employing vendor-derived measures were more likely than those employing investigator-derived measures to observe EHR use only in ambulatory settings (83% vs 48%, P = .002) and only by physicians or advanced practice providers (100% vs 54% of studies, P < .001). Studies employing vendor-derived measures were also more likely to measure durations of EHR use (P < .001 for 6 different activities), but definitions of measures such as time outside scheduled hours varied widely. Eight articles reported measure validation. The reported limitations of vendor-derived measures included measure transparency and availability for certain clinical settings and roles. DISCUSSION: Vendor-derived measures are increasingly used to study EHR use, but only by certain clinical roles. Although poorly validated and variously defined, both vendor- and investigator-derived measures of EHR time are widely reported. CONCLUSION: The number of studies using event logs to observe EHR use continues to grow, but with inconsistent measure definitions and significant differences between studies that employ vendor-derived and investigator-derived measures.

Medical Scribes Have a Variable Impact on Documentation Workflows.

Physicians can reduce their documentation time by working with a scribe. However, what scribes document and how their actions affect existing documentation workflows is unclear. This study leverages electronic health record (EHR) audit logs to observe how scribes affected the documentation workflows of seven physicians and their staff across 13,000 outpatient ophthalmology visits. In addition to editing progress notes, scribes routinely edited exam findings and diagnoses. Scribes with clinical training also edited items such as vital signs that a scribe without clinical training did not. Every physician edited patient records later in the day when working with a scribe and those who deferred their editing the most had some of the largest reductions in EHR time. These results suggest that what scribes document, how physicians work with scribes, and scribe impact on documentation time are all highly variable, highlighting the need for evidence-based best practices.

Frequent but fragmented: use of note templates to document outpatient visits at an academic health center.

Recent changes to billing policy have reduced documentation requirements for outpatient notes, providing an opportunity to rethink documentation workflows. While many providers use templates to write notes-whether to insert short phrases or draft entire notes-we know surprisingly little about how these templates are used in practice. In this retrospective cross-sectional study, we observed the templates that primary providers and other members of the care team used to write the provider progress note for 2.5 million outpatient visits across 52 specialties at an academic health center between 2018 and 2020. Templates were used to document 89% of visits, with a median of 2 used per visit. Only 17% of the 100 230 unique templates were ever used by more than one person and most providers had their own full-note templates. These findings suggest template use is frequent but fragmented, complicating template revision and maintenance. Reframing template use as a form of computer programming suggests ways to maintain the benefits of personalization while leveraging standardization to reduce documentation burden.

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 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.

Length and Redundancy of Outpatient Progress Notes Across a Decade at an Academic Medical Center.

Importance: There is widespread concern that clinical notes have grown longer and less informative over the past decade. Addressing these concerns requires a better understanding of the magnitude, scope, and potential causes of increased note length and redundancy. Objective: To measure changes between 2009 and 2018 in the length and redundancy of outpatient progress notes across multiple medical specialties and investigate how these measures associate with author experience and method of note entry. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted at Oregon Health & Science University, a large academic medical center. Participants included clinicians and staff who wrote outpatient progress notes between 2009 and 2018 for a random sample of 200 000 patients. Statistical analysis was performed from March to August 2020. Exposures: Use of a comprehensive electronic health record to document patient care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Note length, note redundancy (ie, the proportion of text identical to the patient's last note), and percentage of templated, copied, or directly typed note text. Results: A total of 2 704 800 notes written by 6228 primary authors across 46 specialties were included in this study. Median note length increased 60.1% (99% CI, 46.7%-75.2%) from a median of 401 words (interquartile range [IQR], 225-660 words) in 2009 to 642 words (IQR, 399-1007 words) in 2018. Median note redundancy increased 10.9 percentage points (99% CI, 7.5-14.3 percentage points) from 47.9% in 2009 to 58.8% in 2018. Notes written in 2018 had a mean value of just 29.4% (99% CI, 28.2%-30.7%) directly typed text with the remaining 70.6% of text being templated or copied. Mixed-effect linear models found that notes with higher proportions of templated or copied text were significantly longer and more redundant (eg, in the 2-year model, each 1% increase in the proportion of copied or templated note text was associated with 1.5% [95% CI, 1.5%-1.5%] and 1.6% [95% CI, 1.6%-1.6%] increases in note length, respectively). Residents and fellows also wrote significantly (26.3% [95% CI, 25.8%-26.7%]) longer notes than more senior authors, as did more recent hires (1.8% for each year later [95% CI, 1.3%-2.4%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, outpatient progress notes grew longer and more redundant over time, potentially limiting their use in patient care. Interventions aimed at reducing outpatient progress note length and redundancy may need to simultaneously address multiple factors such as note template design and training for both new and established clinicians.

Comparing Scribed and Non-scribed Outpatient Progress Notes.

Working with scribes can reduce provider documentation time, but few studies have examined how scribes affect clinical notes. In this retrospective cross-sectional study, we examine over 50,000 outpatient progress notes written with and without scribe assistance by 70 providers across 27 specialties in 2017-2018. We find scribed notes were consistently longer than those written without scribe assistance, with most additional text coming from note templates. Scribed notes were also more likely to contain certain templated lists, such as the patient's medications or past medical history. However, there was significant variation in how working with scribes affected a provider's mix of typed, templated, and copied note text, suggesting providers adapt their documentation workflows to varying degrees when working with scribes. These results suggest working with scribes may contribute to note bloat, but that providers' individual documentation workflows, including their note templates, may have a large impact on scribed note contents.

Clinical Documentation During Scribed and Non-scribed Ophthalmology Office Visits.

PURPOSE: Observe the impact of employing scribes on documentation efficiency in ophthalmology clinics. DESIGN: Single-center retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 29,997 outpatient visits conducted by seven attending ophthalmologists between 1/1/2018 and 12/31/2019 were included in the study; 18,483 with a scribe present during the encounter and 11,514 without a scribe present. INTERVENTION: Use of a scribe. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total physician documentation time, physician documentation time during and after the visit, visit length, time to chart closure, note length, and percent of note text edited by physician. RESULTS: Total physician documentation time was significantly less when working with a scribe (mean ± SD, 4.7 ± 2.9 vs. 7.6 ± 3.8 minutes/note, P<.001), as was documentation time during the visit (2.8 ± 2.2 vs. 5.9 ± 3.1 minutes/note, P<.001). Physicians also edited scribed notes less, deleting 1.9 ± 4.4% of scribes' draft note text and adding 14.8 ± 11.4% of the final note text, compared to deleting 6.0 ± 9.1%(P<.001) of draft note text and adding 21.2 ± 15.3%(P<.001) of final note text when not working with a scribe. However, physician after-visit documentation time was significantly higher with a scribe for 3 of 7 physicians (P<.001). Scribe use was also associated with an office visit length increase of 2.9 minutes (P<.001) per patient and time to chart closure of 3.0 hours (P<.001), according to mixed-effects linear models. CONCLUSIONS: Scribe use was associated with increased documentation efficiency through lower total documentation time and less note editing by physicians. However, the use of a scribe was also associated with longer office visit lengths and time to chart closure. The variability in the impact of scribe use on different measures of documentation efficiency leaves unanswered questions about best practices for the implementation of scribes, and warrants further study of effective scribe use.

Metrics for assessing physician activity using electronic health record log data.

Electronic health record (EHR) log data have shown promise in measuring physician time spent on clinical activities, contributing to deeper understanding and further optimization of the clinical environment. In this article, we propose 7 core measures of EHR use that reflect multiple dimensions of practice efficiency: total EHR time, work outside of work, time on documentation, time on prescriptions, inbox time, teamwork for orders, and an aspirational measure for the amount of undivided attention patients receive from their physicians during an encounter, undivided attention. We also illustrate sample use cases for these measures for multiple stakeholders. Finally, standardization of EHR log data measure specifications, as outlined here, will foster cross-study synthesis and comparative research.

Methods for Large-Scale Quantitative Analysis of Scribe Impacts on Clinical Documentation.

Many medical providers employ scribes to manage electronic health record (EHR) documentation. Prior studies have shown the benefits of scribes, but no large-scale study has quantitively assessed scribe impact on documentation workflows. We propose methods that leverage EHR data for identifying scribe presence during an office visit, measuring provider documentation time, and determining how notes are edited and composed. In a case study, we found scribe use was associated with less provider documentation time overall (averaging 2.4 minutes or 39% less time, p < 0.001), fewer note edits by providers (8.4% less added and 4.2% less deleted text, p < 0.001), but significantly more documentation time after the visit for four out of seven providers (p < 0.001) and no change in the amount of copied and imported note text. Our methods could validate prior study results, identify variability for determining best practices, and determine that scribes do not improve all aspects of documentation.

Clinical Documentation as End-User Programming.

As healthcare providers have transitioned from paper to electronic health records they have gained access to increasingly sophisticated documentation aids such as custom note templates. However, little is known about how providers use these aids. To address this gap, we examine how 48 ophthalmologists and their staff create and use content-importing phrases - a customizable and composable form of note template - to document office visits across two years. In this case study, we find 1) content-importing phrases were used to document the vast majority of visits (95%), 2) most content imported by these phrases was structured data imported by data-links rather than boilerplate text, and 3) providers primarily used phrases they had created while staff largely used phrases created by other people. We conclude by discussing how framing clinical documentation as end-user programming can inform the design of electronic health records and other documentation systems mixing data and narrative text.

Electronic Health Records in Ophthalmology: Source and Method of Documentation.

PURPOSE: This study analyzed and quantified the sources of electronic health record (EHR) text documentation in ophthalmology progress notes. DESIGN: EHR documentation review and analysis. METHODS: Setting: a single academic ophthalmology department. STUDY POPULATION: a cohort study conducted between November 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018, using secondary EHR data and a follow-up manual review of a random samples. The cohort study included 123,274 progress notes documented by 42 attending providers. These notes were for patients with the 5 most common primary International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, version 10, parent codes for each provider. For the manual review, 120 notes from 8 providers were randomly sampled. Main outcome measurements were characters or number of words in each note categorized by attribution source, author type, and time of creation. RESULTS: Imported text entries made up the majority of text in new and return patients, 2,978 characters (77%) and 3,612 characters (91%). Support staff members authored substantial portions of notes; 3,024 characters (68%) of new patient notes, 3,953 characters (83%) of return patient notes. Finally, providers completed large amounts of documentation after clinical visits: 135 words (35%) of new patient notes, 102 words (27%) of return patient notes. CONCLUSIONS: EHR documentation consists largely of imported text, is often authored by support staff, and is often written after the end of a visit. These findings raise questions about documentation accuracy and utility and may have implications for quality of care and patient-provider relationships.

Using electronic health record audit logs to study clinical activity: a systematic review of aims, measures, and methods.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review published literature and identify consistency and variation in the aims, measures, and methods of studies using electronic health record (EHR) audit logs to observe clinical activities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In July 2019, we searched PubMed for articles using EHR audit logs to study clinical activities. We coded and clustered the aims, measures, and methods of each article into recurring categories. We likewise extracted and summarized the methods used to validate measures derived from audit logs and limitations discussed of using audit logs for research. RESULTS: Eighty-five articles met inclusion criteria. Study aims included examining EHR use, care team dynamics, and clinical workflows. Studies employed 6 key audit log measures: counts of actions captured by audit logs (eg, problem list viewed), counts of higher-level activities imputed by researchers (eg, chart review), activity durations, activity sequences, activity clusters, and EHR user networks. Methods used to preprocess audit logs varied, including how authors filtered extraneous actions, mapped actions to higher-level activities, and interpreted repeated actions or gaps in activity. Nineteen studies validated results (22%), but only 9 (11%) through direct observation, demonstrating varying levels of measure accuracy. DISCUSSION: While originally designed to aid access control, EHR audit logs have been used to observe diverse clinical activities. However, most studies lack sufficient discussion of measure definition, calculation, and validation to support replication, comparison, and cross-study synthesis. CONCLUSION: EHR audit logs have potential to scale observational research but the complexity of audit log measures necessitates greater methodological transparency and validated standards.

Validating free-text order entry for a note-centric EHR.

Electronic Health Records (EHRs) have increased the utility and portability of health information by storing it in structured formats. However, EHRs separate this structured data from the rich, free-text descriptions of clinical notes. The ultimate objective of our research is to develop an interactive progress note that unifies entry, access, and retrieval of structured and unstructured health information. In this study we present the design and subsequent testing with eight clinicians of a core element of this envisioned note: free-text order entry. Clinicians saw this new order-entry paradigm as a way to save time and preserve data quality by reducing double-documentation. However, they wanted the prototype to recognize more diverse types of shorthand and apply default values to fields that remain fairly constant across orders, such as number of refills and pickup location. Future work will test more complex orders, such as cascading orders, with a broader range of clinicians.