Emergency medicine resident physicians' perceptions of electronic documentation and workflow: a mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVE: To understand emergency department (ED) physicians' use of electronic documentation in order to identify usability and workflow considerations for the design of future ED information system (EDIS) physician documentation modules. METHODS: We invited emergency medicine resident physicians to participate in a mixed methods study using task analysis and qualitative interviews. Participants completed a simulated, standardized patient encounter in a medical simulation center while documenting in the test environment of a currently used EDIS. We recorded the time on task, type and sequence of tasks performed by the participants (including tasks performed in parallel). We then conducted semi-structured interviews with each participant. We analyzed these qualitative data using the constant comparative method to generate themes. RESULTS: Eight resident physicians participated. The simulation session averaged 17 minutes and participants spent 11 minutes on average on tasks that included electronic documentation. Participants performed tasks in parallel, such as history taking and electronic documentation. Five of the 8 participants performed a similar workflow sequence during the first part of the session while the remaining three used different workflows. Three themes characterize electronic documentation: (1) physicians report that location and timing of documentation varies based on patient acuity and workload, (2) physicians report a need for features that support improved efficiency; and (3) physicians like viewing available patient data but struggle with integration of the EDIS with other information sources. CONCLUSION: We confirmed that physicians spend much of their time on documentation (65%) during an ED patient visit. Further, we found that resident physicians did not all use the same workflow and approach even when presented with an identical standardized patient scenario. Future EHR design should consider these varied workflows while trying to optimize efficiency, such as improving integration of clinical data. These findings should be tested quantitatively in a larger, representative study.

Relationship between documentation method and quality of chronic disease visit notes.

OBJECTIVE: To assses the relationship between methods of documenting visit notes and note quality for primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists, and to determine the factors that contribute to higher quality notes for two chronic diseases. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of visit notes at two academic medical centers. Two physicians rated the subjective quality of content areas of the note (vital signs, medications, lifestyle, labs, symptoms, assessment & plan), overall quality, and completed the 9 item Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9). We evaluated quality ratings in relation to the primary method of documentation (templates, free-form or dictation) for both PCPs and specialists. A one factor analysis of variance test was used to examine differences in mean quality scores among the methods. RESULTS: A total of 112 physicians, 71 primary care physicians (PCP) and 41 specialists, wrote 240 notes. For specialists, templated notes had the highest overall quality scores (p≤0.001) while for PCPs, there was no statistically significant difference in overall quality score. For PCPs, free form received higher quality ratings on vital signs (p = 0.01), labs (p = 0.002), and lifestyle (p = 0.002) than other methods; templated notes had a higher rating on medications (p≤0.001). For specialists, templated notes received higher ratings on vital signs, labs, lifestyle and medications (p = 0.001). DISCUSSION: There was no significant difference in subjective quality of visit notes written using free-form documentation, dictation or templates for PCPs. The subjective quality rating of templated notes was higher than that of dictated notes for specialists. CONCLUSION: As there is wide variation in physician documentation methods, and no significant difference in note quality between methods, recommending one approach for all physicians may not deliver optimal results.