Clinician and Health Care Leaders' Experiences with-and Perceptions of-COVID-19 Documentation Reduction Policies and Practices.

BACKGROUND: Substantial strategies to reduce clinical documentation were implemented by health care systems throughout the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic at national and local levels. This natural experiment provides an opportunity to study the impact of documentation reduction strategies on documentation burden among clinicians and other health professionals in the United States. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess clinicians' and other health care leaders' experiences with and perceptions of COVID-19 documentation reduction strategies and identify which implemented strategies should be prioritized and remain permanent post-pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a national survey of clinicians and health care leaders to understand COVID-19 documentation reduction strategies implemented during the pandemic using snowball sampling through professional networks, listservs, and social media. We developed and validated a 19-item survey leveraging existing post-COVID-19 policy and practice recommendations proposed by Sinsky and Linzer. Participants rated reduction strategies for impact on documentation burden on a scale of 0 to 100. Free-text responses were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 351 surveys initiated, 193 (55%) were complete. Most participants were informaticians and/or clinicians and worked for a health system or in academia. A majority experienced telehealth expansion (81.9%) during the pandemic, which participants also rated as highly impactful (60.1-61.5) and preferred that it remain (90.5%). Implemented at lower proportions, documenting only pertinent positives to reduce note bloat (66.1 ± 28.3), changing compliance rules and performance metrics to eliminate those without evidence of net benefit (65.7 ± 26.3), and electronic health record (EHR) optimization sprints (64.3 ± 26.9) received the highest impact scores compared with other strategies presented; support for these strategies widely ranged (49.7-63.7%). CONCLUSION: The results of this survey suggest there are many perceived sources of and solutions for documentation burden. Within strategies, we found considerable support for telehealth, documenting pertinent positives, and changing compliance rules. We also found substantial variation in the experience of documentation burden among participants.

Measurement of clinical documentation burden among physicians and nurses using electronic health records: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: . OBJECTIVE: Electronic health records (EHRs) are linked with documentation burden resulting in clinician burnout. While clear classifications and validated measures of burnout exist, documentation burden remains ill-defined and inconsistently measured. We aim to conduct a scoping review focused on identifying approaches to documentation burden measurement and their characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews (ScR) guidelines, we conducted a scoping review assessing MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL from inception to April 2020 for studies investigating documentation burden among physicians and nurses in ambulatory or inpatient settings. Two reviewers evaluated each potentially relevant study for inclusion/exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Of the 3482 articles retrieved, 35 studies met inclusion criteria. We identified 15 measurement characteristics, including 7 effort constructs: EHR usage and workload, clinical documentation/review, EHR work after hours and remotely, administrative tasks, cognitively cumbersome work, fragmentation of workflow, and patient interaction. We uncovered 4 time constructs: average time, proportion of time, timeliness of completion, activity rate, and 11 units of analysis. Only 45.0% of studies assessed the impact of EHRs on clinicians and/or patients and 40.0% mentioned clinician burnout. DISCUSSION: Standard and validated measures of documentation burden are lacking. While time and effort were the core concepts measured, there appears to be no consensus on the best approach nor degree of rigor to study documentation burden. CONCLUSION: Further research is needed to reliably operationalize the concept of documentation burden, explore best practices for measurement, and standardize its use.