Dataset Information

Use of Electronic Health Record Simulation to Understand the Accuracy of Intern Progress Notes.

ABSTRACT: Background?With the widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs), there is a growing awareness of problems in EHR training for new users and subsequent problems with the quality of information present in EHR-generated progress notes. By standardizing the case, simulation allows for the discovery of EHR patterns of use as well as a modality to aid in EHR training. Objective?To develop a high-fidelity EHR training exercise for internal medicine interns to understand patterns of EHR utilization in the generation of daily progress notes. Methods?Three months after beginning their internship, 32 interns participated in an EHR simulation designed to assess patterns in note writing and generation. Each intern was given a simulated chart and instructed to create a daily progress note. Notes were graded for use of copy-paste, macros, and accuracy of presented data. Results?A total of 31 out of 32 interns (97%) completed the exercise. There was wide variance in use of macros to populate data, with multiple macro types used for the same data category. Three-quarters of notes contained either copy-paste elements or the elimination of active medical problems from the prior days' notes. This was associated with a significant number of quality issues, including failure to recognize a lack of deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis, medications stopped on admission, and issues in prior discharge summary. Conclusions?Interns displayed wide variation in the process of creating progress notes. Additional studies are being conducted to determine the impact EHR-based simulation has on standardization of note content.

SUBMITTER: March CA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4857515 | biostudies-literature | 2016 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Use of Electronic Health Record Simulation to Understand the Accuracy of Intern Progress Notes.

March Christopher A CA Scholl Gretchen G Dversdal Renee K RK Richards Matthew M Wilson Leah M LM Mohan Vishnu V Gold Jeffrey A JA

Journal of graduate medical education 20160501 2

Background With the widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs), there is a growing awareness of problems in EHR training for new users and subsequent problems with the quality of information present in EHR-generated progress notes. By standardizing the case, simulation allows for the discovery of EHR patterns of use as well as a modality to aid in EHR training. Objective To develop a high-fidelity EHR training exercise for internal medicine interns to understand patterns of EHR util ...[more]

PMID: 27168894

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAccurate data retrieval is an essential part of patient care in the intensive care unit (ICU). The electronic health record (EHR) is the primary method for data storage and data review. We previously reported that residents participating in EHR-based simulations have varied and nonstandard approaches to finding data in the ICU, with subsequent errors in recognizing patient safety issues. We hypothesized that a novel EHR simulation-based training exercise would decrease EHR use variability among intervention interns, irrespective of prior EHR experience.ObjectiveThis study aims to understand the impact of a novel, short, high-fidelity, simulation-based EHR learning activity on the intern data gathering workflow and satisfaction.MethodsA total of 72 internal medicine interns across the 2018 and 2019 academic years underwent a dedicated EHR training session as part of a week-long boot camp early in their training. We collected data on previous EHR and ICU experience for all subjects. Training consisted of 1 hour of guided review of a high-fidelity, simulated ICU patient chart focusing on best navigation practices for data retrieval. Specifically, the activity focused on using high- and low-yield data visualization screens determined by expert consensus. The intervention group interns then had 20 minutes to review a new simulated patient chart before the group review. EHR screen navigation was captured using screen recording software and compared with data from existing ICU residents performing the same task on the same medical charts (N=62). Learners were surveyed immediately and 6 months after the activity to assess satisfaction and preferred EHR screen use.ResultsParticipants found the activity useful and enjoyable immediately and after 6 months. Intervention interns used more individual screens than reference residents (18 vs 20; P=.008), but the total number of screens used was the same (35 vs 38; P=.30). Significantly more intervention interns used the 10 most common screens (73% vs 45%; P=.001). Intervention interns used high-yield screens more often and low-yield screens less often than the reference residents, which are persistent on self-report 6 months later.ConclusionsA short, high-fidelity, simulation-based learning activity focused on provider-specific data gathering was found to be enjoyable and to modify navigation patterns persistently. This suggests that workflow-specific simulation-based EHR training throughout training is of educational benefit to residents.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The electronic health record is a primary source of information for all professional groups participating in ICU rounds. We previously demonstrated that, individually, all professional groups involved in rounds have significant blind spots in recognition of patient safety issues in the electronic health record. However, it is unclear how team dynamics impacts identification and verbalization of viewed data. Therefore, we created an ICU rounding simulation to assess how the interprofessional team recognized and reported data and its impact on decision-making. DESIGN:Each member of the ICU team reviewed a simulated ICU chart in the electronic health record which contained embedded patient safety issues. The team conducted simulated rounds according to the ICU's existing rounding script and was assessed for recognition of safety issues. SETTING:Academic medical center. SUBJECTS:ICU residents, nurses, and pharmacists. INTERVENTION:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Twenty-eight teams recognized 68.6% of safety issues with only 50% teams having the primary diagnosis in their differential. Individually, interns, nurses, and pharmacists recognized 30.4%, 15.6%, and 19.6% of safety items, respectively. However, there was a negative correlation between the intern's performance and the nurse's or the pharmacist's performance within a given team. The wide variance in recognition of data resulted in wide variance in orders. Overall, there were 21.8 orders requested and 21.6 orders placed per case resulting in 3.6 order entry inconsistencies/case. Between the two cases, there were 145 distinct orders place with 43% being unique to a specific team and only 2% placed by all teams. CONCLUSIONS:Although significant blind spots exist in the interprofessional team's ability to recognize safety issues in the electronic health record, the inclusion of other professional groups does serve as a partial safety net to improve recognition. Electronic health record-based, ICU rounding simulations can serve as a test-bed for innovations in ICU rounding structure and data collection.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The transition to the electronic health record (EHR) has brought forth a rapid cultural shift in the world of medicine, presenting both new challenges as well as opportunities for improving health care. As clinicians work to adapt to the changes imposed by the EHR, identification of best practices around the clinically excellent use of the EHR is needed. OBJECTIVE:Using the domains of clinical excellence previously defined by the Johns Hopkins Miller Coulson Academy of Clinical Excellence, this review aims to identify best practices around the clinically excellent use of the EHR. METHODS:The authors searched the PubMed database, using keywords related to clinical excellence domains and the EHR, to capture the English-language, peer-reviewed literature published between January 1, 2000, and August 2, 2016. One author independently reviewed each article and extracted relevant data. RESULTS:The search identified 606 titles, with the majority (393/606, 64.9%) in the domain of communication and interpersonal skills. Twenty-eight of the 606 (4.6%) titles were excluded from full-text review, primarily due to lack of availability of the full-text article. The remaining 578 full-text articles reviewed were related to clinical excellence generally (3/578, 0.5%) or the specific domains of communication and interpersonal skills (380/578, 65.7%), diagnostic acumen (31/578, 5.4%), skillful negotiation of the health care system (4/578, 0.7%), scholarly approach to clinical practice (41/578, 7.1%), professionalism and humanism (2/578, 0.4%), knowledge (97/578, 16.8%), and passion for clinical medicine (20/578, 3.5%). CONCLUSIONS:Results suggest that as familiarity and expertise are developed, clinicians are leveraging the EHR to provide clinically excellent care. Best practices identified included deliberate physical configuration of the clinical space to involve sharing the screen with patients and limiting EHR use during difficult and emotional topics. Promising horizons for the EHR include the ability to augment participation in pragmatic trials, identify adverse drug effects, correlate genomic data to clinical outcomes, and follow data-driven guidelines. Clinician and patient satisfaction with the EHR has generally improved with time, and hopefully continued clinician, and patient input will lead to a system that satisfies all.

Project description:ImportanceAs health information transparency increases, patients more often seek their health data. More than 44 million patients in the US can now readily access their ambulatory visit notes online, and the practice is increasing abroad. Few studies have assessed documentation errors that patients identify in their notes and how these may inform patient engagement and safety strategies.ObjectiveTo assess the frequency and types of errors identified by patients who read open ambulatory visit notes.Design, setting, and participantsIn this survey study, a total of 136?815 patients at 3 US health care organizations with open notes, including 79 academic and community ambulatory care practices, received invitations to an online survey from June 5 to October 20, 2017. Patients who had at least 1 ambulatory note and had logged onto the portal at least once in the past 12 months were included. Data analysis was performed from July 3, 2018, to April 27, 2020.ExposuresAccess to ambulatory care open notes through patient portals for up to 7 years (2010-2017).Main outcomes and measuresProportion of patients reporting a mistake and how serious they perceived the mistake to be, factors associated with finding errors characterized by patients as serious, and categories of patient-reported errors.ResultsOf 136?815 patients who received survey invitations, 29?656 (21.7%) responded and 22?889 patients (mean [SD] age, 55.16 [15.96] years; 14 447 [63.1%] female; 18 301 [80.0%] white) read 1 or more notes in the past 12 months and completed error questions. Of these patients, 4830 (21.1%) reported a perceived mistake and 2043 (42.3%) reported that the mistake was serious (somewhat serious: 1563 [32.4%]; very serious: 480 [9.9%]). In multivariable analysis, female patients (relative risk [RR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.72-1.85), more educated patients (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.29-1.48), sicker patients (RR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.84-1.94), those aged 45 to 64 years (RR, 2.23; 95% CI, 2.06-2.42), those 65 years or older (RR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.73-2.32), and those who read more than 1 note (2-3 notes: RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.34-2.47; ?4 notes: RR, 3.09; 95% CI, 2.02-4.73) were more likely to report a mistake that they found to be serious compared with their reference groups. After categorization of patient-reported very serious mistakes, those specifically mentioning the word diagnosis or describing a specific error in current or past diagnoses were most common (98 of 356 [27.5%]), followed by inaccurate medical history (85 of 356 [23.9%]), medications or allergies (50 of 356 [14.0%]), and tests, procedures, or results (30 of 356 [8.4%]). A total of 23 (6.5%) reflected notes reportedly written on the wrong patient. Of 433 very serious errors, 255 (58.9%) included at least 1 perceived error potentially associated with the diagnostic process (eg, history, physical examination, tests, referrals, and communication).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, patients who read ambulatory notes online perceived mistakes, a substantial proportion of which they found to be serious. Older and sicker patients were twice as likely to report a serious error compared with younger and healthier patients, indicating important safety and quality implications. Sharing notes with patients may help engage them to improve record accuracy and health care safety together with practitioners.

Project description:ObjectiveTo establish the role of high-fidelity simulation training to test the efficacy and safety of the electronic health record (EHR)-user interface within the intensive care unit (ICU) environment.DesignProspective pilot study.SettingMedical ICU in an academic medical centre.ParticipantsPostgraduate medical trainees.InterventionsA 5-day-simulated ICU patient was developed in the EHR including labs, hourly vitals, medication administration, ventilator settings, nursing and notes. Fourteen medical issues requiring recognition and subsequent changes in management were included. Issues were chosen based on their frequency of occurrence within the ICU and their ability to test different aspects of the EHR-user interface. ICU residents, blinded to the presence of medical errors within the case, were provided a sign-out and given 10 min to review the case in the EHR. They then presented the case with their management suggestions to an attending physician. Participants were graded on the number of issues identified. All participants were provided with immediate feedback upon completion of the simulation.Primary and secondary outcomesTo determine the frequency of error recognition in an EHR simulation. To determine factors associated with improved performance in the simulation.Results38 participants including 9 interns, 10 residents and 19 fellows were tested. The average error recognition rate was 41% (range 6-73%), which increased slightly with the level of training (35%, 41% and 50% for interns, residents, and fellows, respectively). Over-sedation was the least-recognised error (16%); poor glycemic control was most often recognised (68%). Only 32% of the participants recognised inappropriate antibiotic dosing. Performance correlated with the total number of screens used (p=0.03).ConclusionsDespite development of comprehensive EHRs, there remain significant gaps in identifying dangerous medical management issues. This gap remains despite high levels of medical training, suggesting that EHR-specific training may be beneficial. Simulation provides a novel tool in order to both identify these gaps as well as foster EHR-specific training.

Dataset Information

Use of Electronic Health Record Simulation to Understand the Accuracy of Intern Progress Notes.

Publications

Use of Electronic Health Record Simulation to Understand the Accuracy of Intern Progress Notes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets