ÌÇÐÄvlog

Object moved to here.

Physician EHR Time and Visit Volume Following Adoption of Team-Based Documentation Support | Professional Well-being | JAMA Internal Medicine | ÌÇÐÄvlog

ÌÇÐÄvlog

[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
1.
Gawande ÌýA. Why doctors hate their computers. The New Yorker. Published online November 5, 2018. Accessed April 9, 2019.
2.
Overhage ÌýJM, McCallie ÌýD ÌýJr. ÌýPhysician time spent using the electronic health record during outpatient encounters: a descriptive study.Ìý ÌýAnn Intern Med. 2020;172(3):169-174. Published online January 14, 2020. doi:
3.
Tai-Seale ÌýM, Olson ÌýCW, Li ÌýJ, Ìýet al. ÌýElectronic health record logs indicate that physicians split time evenly between seeing patients and desktop medicine.Ìý ÌýHealth Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(4):655-662. doi:
4.
Rotenstein ÌýLS, Holmgren ÌýAJ, Downing ÌýNL, Bates ÌýDW. ÌýDifferences in total and after-hours electronic health record time across ambulatory specialties.Ìý Ìý´³´¡²Ñ´¡ Intern Med. 2021;181(6):863-865. Published online March 22, 2021. doi:
5.
Adler-Milstein ÌýJ, Zhao ÌýW, Willard-Grace ÌýR, Knox ÌýM, Grumbach ÌýK. ÌýElectronic health records and burnout: time spent on the electronic health record after hours and message volume associated with exhaustion but not with cynicism among primary care clinicians.Ìý ÌýJ Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;27(4):531-538. doi:
6.
Gardner ÌýRL, Cooper ÌýE, Haskell ÌýJ, Ìýet al. ÌýPhysician stress and burnout: the impact of health information technology.Ìý ÌýJ Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019;26(2):106-114. doi:
7.
Shanafelt ÌýTD, West ÌýCP, Sinsky ÌýC, Ìýet al. ÌýChanges in burnout and satisfaction with work-life integration in physicians and the general US working population between 2011 and 2020.Ìý ÌýMayo Clin Proc. 2022;97(3):491-506. doi:
8.
Sinsky ÌýCA, Shanafelt ÌýTD, Dyrbye ÌýLN, Sabety ÌýAH, Carlasare ÌýLE, West ÌýCP. ÌýHealth care expenditures attributable to primary care physician overall and burnout-related turnover: A cross-sectional analysis.Ìý ÌýMayo Clin Proc. 2022;97(4):693-702. Published online February 25, 2022. doi:
9.
Holmgren ÌýAJ, Downing ÌýNL, Bates ÌýDW, Ìýet al. ÌýAssessment of electronic health record use between US and non-US health systems.Ìý Ìý´³´¡²Ñ´¡ Intern Med. 2021;181(2):251-259. Published online December 14, 2020. doi:
10.
Downing ÌýNL, Bates ÌýDW, Longhurst ÌýCA. ÌýPhysician burnout in the electronic health record era: are we ignoring the real cause?Ìý ÌýAnn Intern Med. 2018;169(1):50-51. Published online May 8, 2018. doi:
11.
Holmgren ÌýAJ, Rotenstein ÌýL, Downing ÌýNL, Bates ÌýDW, Schulman ÌýK. ÌýAssociation between state-level malpractice environment and clinician electronic health record (EHR) time.Ìý ÌýJ Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022;29(6):1069-1077. Published online March 10, 2022. doi:
12.
Apathy ÌýNC, Hare ÌýAJ, Fendrich ÌýS, Cross ÌýDA. ÌýEarly changes in billing and notes after evaluation and management guideline change.Ìý ÌýAnn Intern Med. 2022;175(4):499-504. doi:
13.
Reducing administrative burden. ÌÇÐÄvlog. Accessed March 6, 2023.
14.
American Medical Informatics Association. AMIA 25×5—reducing documentation burden to 25% of current state in five years. Accessed March 6, 2023.
15.
Maisel ÌýN, Thombley ÌýR, Overhage ÌýJM, Blake ÌýK, Sinsky ÌýCA, Adler-Milstein ÌýJ. ÌýPhysician electronic health record use after changes in US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services documentation requirements.Ìý Ìý´³´¡²Ñ´¡ Health Forum. 2023;4(5):e230984. doi:
16.
Rule ÌýA, Hribar ÌýMR. ÌýFrequent but fragmented: use of note templates to document outpatient visits at an academic health center.Ìý ÌýJ Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021;29(1):137-141. doi:
17.
Cimino ÌýJJ. ÌýPutting the “why†in “EHRâ€: capturing and coding clinical cognition.Ìý ÌýJ Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019;26(11):1379-1384. doi:
18.
Apathy ÌýNC, Rotenstein ÌýL, Bates ÌýDW, Holmgren ÌýAJ. ÌýDocumentation dynamics: note composition, burden, and physician efficiency.Ìý ÌýHealth Serv Res. 2023;58(3):674-685. Published online November 7, 2022. doi:
19.
Cross ÌýDA, Holmgren ÌýAJ, Apathy ÌýNC. ÌýThe role of organizations in shaping physician use of electronic health records.Ìý ÌýHealth Serv Res. 2024;59(1):e14203. Published online July 12, 2023. doi:
20.
Sieja ÌýA, Whittington ÌýMD, Patterson ÌýVP, Ìýet al. ÌýThe influence of a Sprint optimization and training intervention on time spent in the electronic health record (EHR).Ìý ÌýJAMIA Open. 2021;4(3):ooab073. doi:
21.
Sieja ÌýA, Markley ÌýK, Pell ÌýJ, Ìýet al. ÌýOptimization sprints: Improving clinician satisfaction and teamwork by rapidly reducing electronic health record burden.Ìý ÌýMayo Clin Proc. 2019;94(5):793-802. doi:
22.
Chong ÌýAZ, Lee ÌýB, Hollenbach ÌýK, Kuelbs ÌýCL. ÌýDisappearing help text: implementing a note-based tool for in-line clinical decision support and note bloat reduction.Ìý ÌýAppl Clin Inform. 2022;13(5):1033-1039. doi:
23.
Kroth ÌýPJ, Morioka-Douglas ÌýN, Veres ÌýS, Ìýet al. ÌýThe electronic elephant in the room: physicians and the electronic health record.Ìý ÌýJAMIA Open. 2018;1(1):49-56. doi:
24.
Gidwani ÌýR, Nguyen ÌýC, Kofoed ÌýA, Ìýet al. ÌýImpact of scribes on physician satisfaction, patient satisfaction, and charting efficiency: a randomized controlled trial.Ìý ÌýAnn Fam Med. 2017;15(5):427-433. doi:
25.
Corby ÌýS, Whittaker ÌýK, Ash ÌýJS, Ìýet al. ÌýThe future of medical scribes documenting in the electronic health record: results of an expert consensus conference.Ìý ÌýBMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021;21(1):204. doi:
26.
Gottlieb ÌýM, Palter ÌýJ, Westrick ÌýJ, Peksa ÌýGD. ÌýEffect of medical scribes on throughput, revenue, and patient and provider satisfaction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Ìý ÌýAnn Emerg Med. 2021;77(2):180-189. doi:
27.
Pearson ÌýE, Frakt ÌýA. ÌýMedical scribes, productivity, and satisfaction.Ìý Ìý´³´¡²Ñ´¡. 2019;321(7):635-636. doi:
28.
Mishra ÌýP, Kiang ÌýJC, Grant ÌýRW. ÌýAssociation of medical scribes in primary care with physician workflow and patient experience.Ìý Ìý´³´¡²Ñ´¡ Intern Med. 2018;178(11):1467-1472. doi:
29.
Corby ÌýS, Ash ÌýJS, Whittaker ÌýK, Ìýet al. ÌýTranslating ethnographic data into knowledge, skills, and attitude statements for medical scribes: a modified Delphi approach.Ìý ÌýJ Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022;29(10):1679-1687. doi:
30.
Ash ÌýJS, Corby ÌýS, Mohan ÌýV, Ìýet al. ÌýSafe use of the EHR by medical scribes: a qualitative study.Ìý ÌýJ Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021;28(2):294-302. doi:
31.
Rotenstein ÌýL, Melnick ÌýER, Iannaccone ÌýC, Ìýet al. ÌýVirtual scribes and physician time spent on electronic health records.Ìý Ìý´³´¡²Ñ´¡ Netw Open. 2024;7(5):e2413140. doi:
32.
Khullar ÌýD. ÌýBurnout, professionalism, and the quality of US health care.Ìý Ìý´³´¡²Ñ´¡ Health Forum. 2023;4(3):e230024. doi:
33.
Definitive Healthcare. Top 10 ambulatory EHR vendors by 2019 market share. Published May 1, 2019. Accessed August 4, 2021.
34.
Baxter ÌýSL, Apathy ÌýNC, Cross ÌýDA, Sinsky ÌýC, Hribar ÌýMR. ÌýMeasures of electronic health record use in outpatient settings across vendors.Ìý ÌýJ Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021;28(5):955-959. doi:
35.
Sinsky ÌýCA, Rule ÌýA, Cohen ÌýG, Ìýet al. ÌýMetrics for assessing physician activity using electronic health record log data.Ìý ÌýJ Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;27(4):639-643. Published online February 6, 2020. doi:
36.
Rule ÌýA, Melnick ÌýER, Apathy ÌýNC. ÌýUsing event logs to observe interactions with electronic health records: an updated scoping review shows increasing use of vendor-derived measures.Ìý ÌýJ Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022;30(1):144-154. doi:
37.
Rule ÌýA, Chiang ÌýMF, Hribar ÌýMR. ÌýUsing electronic health record audit logs to study clinical activity: a systematic review of aims, measures, and methods.Ìý ÌýJ Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;27(3):480-490. doi:
38.
Cohen ÌýGR, Boi ÌýJ, Johnson ÌýC, Brown ÌýL, Patel ÌýV. ÌýMeasuring time clinicians spend using EHRs in the inpatient setting: a national, mixed-methods study.Ìý ÌýJ Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021;28(8):1676-1682. doi:
39.
Ong ÌýSY, Jeffery ÌýMM, Williams ÌýB, Ìýet al. ÌýHow a virtual scribe program improves physicians’ EHR experience, documentation time, and note quality.Ìý NEJM Catalyst. 2021. doi:
40.
Wing ÌýC, Simon ÌýK, Bello-Gomez ÌýRA. ÌýDesigning difference in difference studies: best practices for public health policy research.Ìý ÌýAnnu Rev Public Health. 2018;39:453-469. doi:
41.
Baker ÌýA, Larcker ÌýDF, Wang ÌýCCY. ÌýHow much should we trust staggered difference-in-differences estimates.Ìý Published online March 29, 2021. doi:
42.
Goodman-Bacon ÌýA. ÌýDifference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing.Ìý ÌýJ Econom. 2021;225(2):254-277. doi:
43.
Callaway ÌýB, Sant’Anna ÌýPHC. ÌýDifference-in-differences with multiple time periods.Ìý ÌýJ Econom. Published online December 17, 2020.
44.
Barry ÌýMJ, Tseng ÌýCW. ÌýMoving to more evidence-based primary care encounters: a farewell to the review of systems.Ìý Ìý´³´¡²Ñ´¡. 2022;328(15):1495-1496. doi:
45.
Florig ÌýST, Corby ÌýS, Devara ÌýT, Weiskopf ÌýNG, Mohan ÌýV, Gold ÌýJA. ÌýMedical record closure practices of physicians before and after the use of medical scribes.Ìý Ìý´³´¡²Ñ´¡. 2022;328(13):1350-1352. Published online September 1, 2022. doi:
46.
Rose ÌýC, Thombley ÌýR, Noshad ÌýM, Ìýet al. ÌýTeam is brain: leveraging EHR audit log data for new insights into acute care processes.Ìý ÌýJ Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022;30(1):8-15. Published online October 27, 2022. doi:
47.
Lemieux-Charles ÌýL, McGuire ÌýWL. ÌýWhat do we know about health care team effectiveness—a review of the literature.Ìý ÌýMed Care Res Rev. 2006;63(3):263-300. doi:
48.
Miksanek ÌýTJ, Skandari ÌýMR, Ham ÌýSA, Ìýet al. ÌýThe productivity requirements of implementing a medical scribe program.Ìý ÌýAnn Intern Med. 2021;174(1):1-7. doi:
49.
Rotenstein ÌýLS, Brown ÌýR, Sinsky ÌýC, Linzer ÌýM. ÌýThe association of work overload with burnout and intent to leave the job across the healthcare workforce during COVID-19.Ìý ÌýJ Gen Intern Med. 2023;38(8):1920-1927. Published online March 23, 2023. doi:
50.
Rotenstein ÌýLS, Torre ÌýM, Ramos ÌýMA, Ìýet al. ÌýPrevalence of burnout among physicians: a systematic review.Ìý Ìý´³´¡²Ñ´¡. 2018;320(11):1131-1150. doi:
51.
Harry ÌýEM, Carlasare ÌýLE, Sinsky ÌýCA, Ìýet al. ÌýChildcare stress, burnout, and intent to reduce hours or leave the job during the COVID-19 pandemic among US health care workers.Ìý Ìý´³´¡²Ñ´¡ Netw Open. 2022;5(7):e2221776. doi:
52.
Linzer ÌýM, Jin ÌýJO, Shah ÌýP, Ìýet al. ÌýTrends in clinician burnout with associated mitigating and aggravating factors during the COVID-19 pandemic.Ìý Ìý´³´¡²Ñ´¡ Health Forum. 2022;3(11):e224163. doi:
53.
OCHIN. Accessed March 17, 2022.
54.
Rule ÌýA, Florig ÌýST, Bedrick ÌýS, Mohan ÌýV, Gold ÌýJA, Hribar ÌýMR. ÌýComparing scribed and non-scribed outpatient progress notes.Ìý ÌýAMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2022;2021:1059-1068.
55.
Misra-Hebert ÌýAD, Amah ÌýL, Rabovsky ÌýA, Ìýet al. ÌýMedical scribes: how do their notes stack up?Ìý ÌýJ Fam Pract. 2016;65(3):155-159.
56.
ÌÇÐÄvlog. 5 Simple changes to help cut doctors’ EHR burdens. ÌÇÐÄvlog. Published April 30, 2021. Accessed March 6, 2023.
57.
Owens ÌýLM, Wilda ÌýJJ, Hahn ÌýPY, Koehler ÌýT, Fletcher ÌýJJ. ÌýThe association between use of ambient voice technology documentation during primary care patient encounters, documentation burden, and provider burnout.Ìý ÌýFam Pract. 2024;41(2):86-91. doi:
58.
Baker ÌýHP, Dwyer ÌýE, Kalidoss ÌýS, Hynes ÌýK, Wolf ÌýJ, Strelzow ÌýJA. ÌýChatGPT’s ability to assist with clinical documentation: a randomized controlled trial.Ìý ÌýJ Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2024;32(3):123-129. doi:
59.
Adler-Milstein ÌýJ, Redelmeier ÌýDA, Wachter ÌýRM. ÌýThe limits of clinician vigilance as an AI safety bulwark.Ìý Ìý´³´¡²Ñ´¡. 2024;331(14):1173-1174. doi:
1 Comment for this article
EXPAND ALL
Enhancing Team-Based Documentation: The Pivotal Role of Clinical Informatics Experts in Optimizing EHR Utilization
Wei Fu, Medicine docotor | 1 Department of Gastroenterology, 925th Hospital of PLA Joint Logistics Support Force, Guiyang, China(https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8155-431X)
In a recent study, Apathy et al. 1 found that team-based documentation support significantly improved physician efficiency and reduced EHR usage time. The authors recommend adopting team-based documentation strategies, particularly in high-volume clinical settings, to enhance workflow and optimize EHR utilization.
First, while the study controlled for various factors using a difference-in-differences model, unobserved variables such as physician work styles and team member competencies might still influence outcomes like documentation time and visit volume. These factors could potentially affect the results, and research could benefit from incorporating more control variables, such as sex2,physician experience3 and team dynamics. Methods like propensity
score matching and qualitative assessments of team contributions would provide a more complete picture of the influences on outcomes.
Second, the study covers a relatively short timeframe, from September 2020 to May 2021, which provides strong short-term insights but does not capture long-term effects, such as sustained efficiency gains, physician burnout, or patient outcomes. The authors did not explore in depth whether team-based documentation support could affect long-term physician well-being, such as burnout, or whether patient care quality may change due to the introduction of such support4. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of team-based documentation support was not fully addressed.
Third, although the distinction between high- and low-intensity support was examined, the study did not investigate how different documentation support models, such as onsite versus remote scribes, with or without AI models, might impact outcomes5. The study also failed to evaluate the effectiveness of team-based support across different healthcare systems, like community hospitals versus large academic medical centers, or among various patient populations, such as high-risk versus general groups. These factors are crucial for policy decisions and scaling interventions in diverse healthcare settings. Future research should delve deeper into these variations to offer clearer guidance on the most effective models for different healthcare environments.
Clinical Informatics (CI) experts play a crucial role in the team-based documentation. They are responsible for designing and optimizing EHR platforms, integrating them with hospital systems, and implementing technologies such as Natural Language Processing and automated data entry tools. CI specialists also oversee the management of clinical data, ensuring its security and utility for informed decision-making. By collaborating with clinical teams and providing continuous education, CI experts support the sustainability of documentation systems.
By addressing these role of CI experts, future research can provide clearer guidance on optimizing team-based documentation in various healthcare settings.
References
1. Apathy NC, Holmgren AJ, Cross DA. Physician EHR Time and Visit Volume Following Adoption of Team-Based Documentation Support. JAMA Intern Med. Aug 26 2024;doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.4123
2. Ganguli I, Rivara FP, Inouye SK. Gender Differences in Electronic Health Record Work-Amplifying the Gender Pay and Time Gap in Medicine. JAMA Netw Open. Mar 1 2022;5(3):e223940. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.3940
3. Tait SD, Oshima SM, Ren Y, et al. Electronic Health Record Use by Sex Among Physicians in an Academic Health Care System. JAMA Intern Med. Feb 1 2021;181(2):288-290. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5036
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
READ MORE
Original Investigation
Physician Work Environment and Well-Being
August 26, 2024

Physician EHR Time and Visit Volume Following Adoption of Team-Based Documentation Support

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Maryland School of Public Health, College Park
  • 2Division of Clinical Informatics and Digital Transformation, University of California, San Francisco
  • 3Division of Health Policy & Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis
JAMA Intern Med. 2024;184(10):1212-1221. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.4123
Key Points

QuestionÌý How do physician visit volume, documentation time in the electronic health record (EHR), overall EHR time, and EHR time outside scheduled hours change for physicians adopting team-based documentation support?

FindingsÌý In this national longitudinal cohort study of 18 265 ambulatory physicians, the adoption of team-based documentation support (ie, coauthored notes) was associated with significant increases in visit volume and decreases in documentation time in the EHR, including after-hours EHR time. Physicians with less than 40% of note text authored by another team member did not realize any time savings following documentation support.

MeaningÌý For high-intensity adopters, documentation support can increase visit volume while substantially reducing physician EHR burden.

Abstract

ImportanceÌý Physicians spend the plurality of active electronic health record (EHR) time on documentation. Excessive documentation limits time spent with patients and is associated with burnout. Organizations need effective strategies to reduce physician documentation burden; however, evidence on team-based documentation (eg, medical scribes) has been limited to small, single-institution studies lacking rigorous estimates of how documentation support changes EHR time and visit volume.

ObjectivesÌý To analyze how EHR documentation time and visit volume change following the adoption of team-based documentation approaches.

Design, Setting, and ParticipantsÌý This national longitudinal cohort study analyzed physician-week EHR metadata from September 2020 through April 2021. A 2-way fixed-effects difference-in-differences regression approach was used to analyze changes in the main outcomes after team-based documentation support adoption. Event study regression models were used to examine variation in changes over time and stratified models to analyze the moderating role of support intensity. The sample included US ambulatory physicians using the EHR. Data were analyzed between October 2022 and September 2023.

ExposureÌý Team-based documentation support, defined as new onset and consistent use of coauthored documentation with another clinical team member.

Main Outcomes and MeasuresÌý The main outcomes included weekly visit volume, EHR documentation time, total EHR time, and EHR time outside clinic hours.

ResultsÌý Of 18 265 physicians, 1024 physicians adopted team-based documentation support, with 17 241 comparison physicians who did not adopt such support. The sample included 57.2% primary care physicians, 31.6% medical specialists, and 11.2% surgical specialists; 40.0% practiced in academic settings and 18.4% in outpatient safety-net settings. For adopter physicians, visit volume increased by 6.0% (2.5 visits/wk [95% CI, 1.9-3.0]; P < .001), and documentation time decreased by 9.1% (23.3 min/wk [95% CI, −30.3 to −16.2]; P < .001). Following a 20-week postadoption learning period, visits per week increased by 10.8% and documentation time decreased by 16.2%. Only high-intensity adopters (>40% of note text authored by others) realized reductions in documentation time, both for the full postadoption period (−53.9 min/wk [95% CI, −65.3 to −42.4]; 21.0% decrease; P < .001) and following the learning period (−72.2 min/wk; 28.1% decrease). Low adopters saw no meaningful change in EHR time but realized a similar increase in visit volume.

Conclusions and RelevanceÌý In this national longitudinal cohort study, physicians who adopted team-based documentation experienced increased visit volume and reduced documentation and EHR time, especially after a learning period.

×