Changes in Electronic Health Record Use Time and Documentation over the Course of a Decade.

PURPOSE: With the current wide adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) by ophthalmologists, there are widespread concerns about the amount of time spent using the EHR. The goal of this study was to examine how the amount of time spent using EHRs as well as related documentation behaviors changed 1 decade after EHR adoption. DESIGN: Single-center cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Six hundred eighty-five thousand three hundred sixty-one office visits with 70 ophthalmology providers. METHODS: We calculated time spent using the EHR associated with each individual office visit using EHR audit logs and determined chart closure times and progress note length from secondary EHR data. We tracked and modeled how these metrics changed from 2006 to 2016 with linear mixed models. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Minutes spent using the EHR associated with an office visit, chart closure time in hours from the office visit check-in time, and progress note length in characters. RESULTS: Median EHR time per office visit in 2006 was 4.2 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 3.5 minutes), and increased to 6.4 minutes (IQR, 4.5 minutes) in 2016. Median chart closure time was 2.8 hours (IQR, 21.3 hours) in 2006 and decreased to 2.3 hours (IQR, 18.5 hours) in 2016. In 2006, median note length was 1530 characters (IQR, 1435 characters) and increased to 3838 characters (IQR, 2668.3 characters) in 2016. Linear mixed models found EHR time per office visit was 31.9±0.2% (P < 0.001) greater from 2014 through 2016 than from 2006 through 2010, chart closure time was 6.7±0.3 hours (P < 0.001) shorter from 2014 through 2016 versus 2006 through 2010, and note length was 1807.4±6.5 characters (P < 0.001) longer from 2014 through 2016 versus 2006 through 2010. CONCLUSIONS: After 1 decade of use, providers spend more time using the EHR for an office visit, generate longer notes, and close the chart faster. These changes are likely to represent increased time and documentation pressure for providers. Electronic health record redesign and new documentation regulations may help to address these issues.

Cricothyrotomy: a 5-year experience at one institution.

We describe the prevalence, primary indications and immediate complications of emergency cricothyrotomy (cric) techniques, in a single institution's Emergency Department (ED) and associated air-medical transport service. This is a retrospective review at an academic, level-one trauma center with an annual ED census of 65,000 and an associated air-medical transport service (AMTS). All patients undergoing cric in the field or in the ED between July 1995 and June 2000 were included. Expert reviewers from Emergency Medicine, Trauma Surgery and the AMTS prospectively defined the complication criteria. All charts with a possible complication underwent a blinded evaluation by reviewers representing each of the three clinical services. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. Fifty crics were performed over 5 years. Seventy-six percent of crics were performed in trauma patients. The prevalence of cric in patients requiring airway management in the ED was 1.1% (95% CI, 0.7-1.6) and 10.9% (95% CI, 6.9-16.1) in the field by the AMTS. The prevalence of complications was 14% (95% CI, 4-32.6) in ED patients and 54.5% (95% CI, 32-75.6) for prehospital patients. The overall inter-rater agreement for complication rate was excellent (kappa =.87). Overall, 77% of crics were performed using the rapid four-step technique (RFST). There were no reports of complications associated with the RFST when performed in the ED. Non-RFST crics in the ED had an associated complication rate of 25% (95% CI, 2.8-60). Emergency cricothyrotomy was performed in approximately 1% of all emergency airway cases in the ED and at a higher rate by the AMTS. The most frequent indications were trauma related. Additionally, the RFST was the most commonly used technique for cric at this institution. The complication rate of cric was significantly higher in the prehospital environment than in the ED.