Electronic health records improve clinical note quality.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The clinical note documents the clinician's information collection, problem assessment, clinical management, and its used for administrative purposes. Electronic health records (EHRs) are being implemented in clinical practices throughout the USA yet it is not known whether they improve the quality of clinical notes. The goal in this study was to determine if EHRs improve the quality of outpatient clinical notes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A five and a half year longitudinal retrospective multicenter quantitative study comparing the quality of handwritten and electronic outpatient clinical visit notes for 100 patients with type 2 diabetes at three time points: 6 months prior to the introduction of the EHR (before-EHR), 6 months after the introduction of the EHR (after-EHR), and 5 years after the introduction of the EHR (5-year-EHR). QNOTE, a validated quantitative instrument, was used to assess the quality of outpatient clinical notes. Its scores can range from a low of 0 to a high of 100. Sixteen primary care physicians with active practices used QNOTE to determine the quality of the 300 patient notes. RESULTS: The before-EHR, after-EHR, and 5-year-EHR grand mean scores (SD) were 52.0 (18.4), 61.2 (16.3), and 80.4 (8.9), respectively, and the change in scores for before-EHR to after-EHR and before-EHR to 5-year-EHR were 18% (p<0.0001) and 55% (p<0.0001), respectively. All the element and grand mean quality scores significantly improved over the 5-year time interval. CONCLUSIONS: The EHR significantly improved the overall quality of the outpatient clinical note and the quality of all its elements, including the core and non-core elements. To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate that the EHR significantly improves the quality of clinical notes.

QNOTE: an instrument for measuring the quality of EHR clinical notes.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The outpatient clinical note documents the clinician's information collection, problem assessment, and patient management, yet there is currently no validated instrument to measure the quality of the electronic clinical note. This study evaluated the validity of the QNOTE instrument, which assesses 12 elements in the clinical note, for measuring the quality of clinical notes. It also compared its performance with a global instrument that assesses the clinical note as a whole. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective multicenter blinded study of the clinical notes of 100 outpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who had been seen in clinic on at least three occasions. The 300 notes were rated by eight general internal medicine and eight family medicine practicing physicians. The QNOTE instrument scored the quality of the note as the sum of a set of 12 note element scores, and its inter-rater agreement was measured by the intraclass correlation coefficient. The Global instrument scored the note in its entirety, and its inter-rater agreement was measured by the Fleiss κ. RESULTS: The overall QNOTE inter-rater agreement was 0.82 (CI 0.80 to 0.84), and its note quality score was 65 (CI 64 to 66). The Global inter-rater agreement was 0.24 (CI 0.19 to 0.29), and its note quality score was 52 (CI 49 to 55). The QNOTE quality scores were consistent, and the overall QNOTE score was significantly higher than the overall Global score (p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: We found the QNOTE to be a valid instrument for evaluating the quality of electronic clinical notes, and its performance was superior to that of the Global instrument.

How well do the Framingham risk factors correlate with diagnoses of ischemic heart disease and cerebrovascular disease in a military beneficiary cohort?

We sought to determine how well the Framingham prediction rules correlate with ischemic heart disease and cerebrovascular disease in a military beneficiary cohort by examining demographic and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes from electronic medical records between 2001 and 2008. This sample (n = 163,627) included people averaged at 52 years of age (range 18-108); slightly more than half were male (55%), 21% were African-American, and 59% were Caucasian. Fifteen percent of beneficiaries had ischemic heart disease and 3.4% had cerebrovascular disease. The Framingham model fits our data well; all Framingham risk factors were associated with increased likelihood of ischemic heart disease and all Framingham risk factors except gender increased cerebrovascular disease prevalence. Age was the strongest correlate for both ischemic heart disease and cerebrovascular disease (> 60 years old; ischemic heart disease relative risk, 3.9; 95% confidence interval, 3.7-4.0; cardiovascular disease relative risk, 3.9; 95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.2) followed by hyperlipidemia and hypertension. We conclude that military clinicians can risk stratify military beneficiaries using the Framingham risk model.