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.

The role of primary care non-physician clinic staff in e-mail communication with patients.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have explicitly addressed how e-mail technology may affect non-physician clinic staff, even though these staff typically manage tasks well suited to e-mail communication such as requests for prescription renewals, laboratory and test results, and referral authorizations. GOAL: We conducted a survey of staff members at 10 primary care clinics in Boston to further evaluate non-physician staff attitudes towards e-mail use with patients. We subsequently re-surveyed staff at three of these clinics after the implementation of Patient Gateway, an application designed to facilitate secure electronic communication between patients and the clinics. RESULTS: Before Patient Gateway implementation, 88% of surveyed staff were already using e-mail at least once a day for work-related communication. Many of these staff members (24%) were already using e-mail with patients. Forty-eight percent of staff members thought that increasing e-mail use with patients could improve the quality of care their practices delivered. However, staff reported having some hesitations about increasing e-mail use with patients, mostly relating to security, confidentiality, and workload. After Patient Gateway implementation, users reported high satisfaction with the application and staff in general (users and non-users of Patient Gateway) felt more enthusiastic about increasing e-mail use with patients. CONCLUSIONS: In order to maximize the potential of staff-patient e-mail, it is important that concerns relating to security, confidentiality, and workflow are addressed, and patients must be given guidelines for the appropriate use of e-mail. Secure applications designed with these issues in mind are likely to be well received by staff members, and in turn physicians.