Dataset Information

Physician, Scribe, and Patient Perspectives on Clinical Scribes in Primary Care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Extending medical assistants and nursing roles to include in-visit documentation is a recent innovation in the age of electronic health records. Despite the use of these clinical scribes, little is known regarding interactions among and perspectives of the involved parties: physicians, clinical scribes, and patients.

Objective

The purpose of this project is to describe perspectives of physicians, clinical scribes, and patients regarding clinical scribes in primary care.

Design

We used qualitative content analysis, using Interpretive Description of semi-structured audio-recorded in-person and telephone interviews.

Participants

Participants included 18 physicians and 17 clinical scribes from six healthcare systems, and 36 patients from one healthcare system.

Key results

Despite physician concerns regarding terminology within notes, physicians, clinical scribes, and patients perceived more detailed notes because of real-time documentation by scribes. Most patients were comfortable with the scribe's presence and perceived increased attention from their physicians. Clinical scribes also performed more active roles during a patient visit, leading to formation of positive scribe-patient relationships. The resulting shift in workflow, however, led to stress. Our theoretical model for successful physician-scribe teams emphasizes the importance of interpersonal aspects such as communication, mutual respect, and adaptability, as well as system level support such as training and staffing.

Conclusions

Both interpersonal fit between physician and scribe, and system level support including adequate training, transition time, and staffing support are necessary for successful use of clinical scribes. Future directions for research regarding clinical scribes include study of care continuity, scribe medical knowledge, and scribe burnout.

SUBMITTER: Yan C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4978677 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Physician, Scribe, and Patient Perspectives on Clinical Scribes in Primary Care.

Yan Chen C Rose Susannah S Rothberg Michael B MB Mercer Mary Beth MB Goodman Kenneth K Misra-Hebert Anita D AD

Journal of general internal medicine 20160429 9

<h4>Background</h4>Extending medical assistants and nursing roles to include in-visit documentation is a recent innovation in the age of electronic health records. Despite the use of these clinical scribes, little is known regarding interactions among and perspectives of the involved parties: physicians, clinical scribes, and patients.<h4>Objective</h4>The purpose of this project is to describe perspectives of physicians, clinical scribes, and patients regarding clinical scribes in primary care. ...[more]

PMID: 27130622

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUse of electronic health records (EHRs) is associated with physician stress and burnout. While emergency departments and subspecialists have used scribes to address this issue, little is known about the impact of scribes in academic primary care.ObjectiveAssess the impact of a scribe on physician and patient satisfaction at an academic general internal medicine (GIM) clinic.DesignProspective, pre-post-pilot study. During the 3-month pilot, physicians had clinic sessions with and without a scribe. We assessed changes in (1) physician workplace satisfaction and burnout, (2) time spent on EHR documentation, and (3) patient satisfaction.ParticipantsSix GIM faculty and a convenience sample of their patients (N = 325) at an academic GIM clinic.Main measuresA 21-item pre- and 44-item post-pilot survey assessed physician workplace satisfaction and burnout. Physicians used logs to record time spent on EHR documentation outside of clinic hours. A 27-item post-visit survey assessed patient satisfaction during visits with and without the scribe.Key resultsOf six physicians, 100% were satisfied with clinic workflow post-pilot (vs. 33% pre-pilot), and 83% were satisfied with EHR use post-pilot (vs. 17% pre-pilot). Physician burnout was low at baseline and did not change post-pilot. Mean time spent on post-clinic EHR documentation decreased from 1.65 to 0.76 h per clinic session (p = 0.02). Patient satisfaction was not different between patients who had clinic visits with vs. without scribe overall or by age, gender, and race. Compared to patients 65 years or older, younger patients were more likely to report that the physician was more attentive and provided more education during visits with the scribe present (p = 0.03 and 0.02, respectively). Male patients were more likely to report that they disliked having a scribe (p = 0.03).ConclusionIn an academic GIM setting, employment of a scribe was associated with improved physician satisfaction without compromising patient satisfaction.

Project description:ImportanceWidespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) in medical care has resulted in increased physician documentation workload and decreased interaction with patients. Despite the increasing use of medical scribes for EHR documentation assistance, few methodologically rigorous studies have examined the use of medical scribes in primary care.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of use of medical scribes with primary care physician (PCP) workflow and patient experience.Design, setting, and participantsThis 12-month crossover study with 2 sequences and 4 periods was conducted from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017, in 2 medical center facilities within an integrated health care system and included 18 of 24 eligible PCPs.InterventionsThe PCPs were randomly assigned to start the first 3-month period with or without scribes and then alternated exposure status every 3 months for 1 year, thereby serving as their own controls. The PCPs completed a 6-question survey at the end of each study period. Patients of participating PCPs were surveyed after scribed clinic visits.Main outcomes and measuresPCP-reported perceptions of documentation burden and visit interactions, objective measures of time spent on EHR activity and required for closing encounters, and patient-reported perceptions of visit quality.ResultsOf the 18 participating PCPs, 10 were women, 12 were internal medicine physicians, and 6 were family practice physicians. The PCPs graduated from medical school a mean (SD) of 13.7 (6.5) years before the study start date. Compared with nonscribed periods, scribed periods were associated with less self-reported after-hours EHR documentation (<1 hour daily during week: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 18.0 [95% CI, 4.7-69.0]; <1 hour daily during weekend: aOR, 8.7; 95% CI, 2.7-28.7). Scribed periods were also associated with higher likelihood of PCP-reported spending more than 75% of the visit interacting with the patient (aOR, 295.0; 95% CI, 19.7 to >900) and less than 25% of the visit on a computer (aOR, 31.5; 95% CI, 7.3-136.4). Encounter documentation was more likely to be completed by the end of the next business day during scribed periods (aOR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.2-7.1). A total of 450 of 735 patients (61.2%) reported that scribes had a positive bearing on their visits; only 2.4% reported a negative bearing.Conclusions and relevanceMedical scribes were associated with decreased physician EHR documentation burden, improved work efficiency, and improved visit interactions. Our results support the use of medical scribes as one strategy for improving physician workflow and visit quality in primary care.

Project description:BackgroundWith the increasing adoption of electronic health record (EHR) systems, documentation-related burdens have been increasing for health care providers. Recent estimates indicate that primary care providers spend about one-half of their workdays interacting with the EHR, of which about half is focused on clerical tasks. To reduce documentation burdens associated with the EHR, health care systems and physician practices are increasingly implementing medical scribes to assist providers with real-time documentation. Scribes are typically unlicensed paraprofessionals who assist health care providers by documenting notes electronically under the direction of a licensed practitioner or physician in real time. Despite the promise of scribes, few studies have investigated their effect on clinical encounters, particularly with regard to patient-provider communication.ObjectiveThe purpose of this quasi-experimental pilot study was to understand how scribes affect patient-physician communication in primary care clinical encounters.MethodsWe employed a convergent mixed methods design and included a sample of three physician-scribe pairs and 34 patients. Patients' clinical encounters were randomly assigned to a scribe or nonscribe group. We conducted patient surveys focused on perceptions of patient-provider communication and satisfaction with encounters, video recorded clinical encounters, and conducted physician interviews about their experiences with scribes.ResultsOverall, the survey results revealed that patients across both arms reported very high satisfaction of communication with their physician, their physician's use of the EHR, and their care, with very little variability. Video recording analysis supported patient survey data by demonstrating high measures of communication among physicians in both scribed and nonscribed encounters. Furthermore, video recordings revealed that the presence of scribes had very little effect on the clinical encounter.ConclusionsFrom the patient's perspective, scribes are an acceptable addition to clinical encounters. Although they do not have much impact on patients' perceptions of satisfaction and their impact on the clinical encounter itself was minimal, their potential to reduce documentation-related burden on physicians is valuable. Physicians noted important issues related to scribes, including important considerations for implementing scribe programs, the role of scribes in patient interactions, how physicians work with scribes, characteristics of good scribes, and the role of scribes in physician workflow.

Project description:Although previous studies suggest an association between provider burnout and suboptimal self-reported communication, no studies relate physician burnout to observed patient-physician communication behaviors.To investigate the relationship between physician burnout and observed patient-physician communication outcomes in patient-physician encounters.Longitudinal study of enrollment data from a trial of interventions to improve patient adherence to hypertension treatment.Fifteen urban community-based clinics in Baltimore, MD.Forty physicians and 235 of their adult hypertensive patients, with oversampling of ethnic minorities and poor persons. Fifty-three percent of physicians were women, and the average practice experience was 11.2 years. Among the 235 patients, 66% were women, 60% were African-American, and 90% were insured.Audiotape analysis of communication during outpatient encounters (one per patient) using the Roter Interaction Analysis System and patients' ratings of satisfaction with and trust and confidence in the physician.The median time between the physician burnout assessment and the patient encounter was 15.1 months (range 5.6-30). Multivariate analyses revealed no significant differences in physician communication based on physician burnout. However, compared with patients of low-burnout physicians, patients of high-burnout physicians gave twice as many negative rapport-building statements (incident risk ratio 2.06, 95% CI 1.58-2.86, p < 0.001). Physician burnout was not significantly associated with physician or patient affect, patient-centeredness, verbal dominance, or length of the encounter. Physician burnout was also not significantly associated with patients' ratings of their satisfaction, confidence, or trust.Physician burnout was not associated with physician communication behaviors nor with most measures of patient-centered communication. However, patients engaged in more rapport-building behaviors. These findings suggest a complex relationship between physician burnout and patient-physician communication, which should be investigated and linked to patient outcomes in future research.

Project description:BackgroundMany patients with axial spondylarthritis (axSpA) experience lengthy diagnostic delays upwards of 14 years. (5-14 years). Screening tools for axSpA have been proposed for use in primary care settings, but whether this approach could be implemented into busy primary care settings remains unknown.ObjectiveTo solicit feedback from primary care physicians regarding questions from the Inflammatory Back Pain Assessment: the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) Expert Criteria and gain insight about barriers and facilitators for implementing axSpA screening in primary care.MethodsGuided by Consolidated Criteria for reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ-criteria), we recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in-depth interviews with eight family medicine physicians and ten internists (purposeful sampling) using immersion/crystallization techniques.ResultsFew physicians reported awareness of existing classification criteria for axSpA, and many reported a lack of confidence in their ability to distinguish between inflammatory and mechanical back pain. From three domains, 10 subthemes emerged: 1) typical work-up of axSpA patients in primary care, with subthemes including the clues involved in work-up and role of clinical examinations for axSpA; 2) feedback on questions from the Inflammatory Back Pain Assessment: ASAS Expert Criteria, with subthemes to evaluate contents/questions of a potential screening tool for axSpA; and 3) implementation of the screening tool in primary care settings, with subthemes of perceived barriers including awareness, time, other conditions to screen, rare disease, and lack of structured questionnaire for back pain and perceived facilitators including workflow issues and awareness.ConclusionsPrimary care physicians believed that an improved screening instrument and a strong evidence-base to support the need for screening for axSpA are required. The implementation of axSpA screening into a busy primary care practice requires integration into the practice workflow, with use of technology suggested as a possible way to improve efficiency.

Project description:BackgroundThe province of British Columbia is facing a family physician shortage despite consistent increases in the number of physicians per capita and ongoing reforms to address the shortage. We identify physicians' priorities for structural reform, describe the alignment of those priorities with BC's suite of reforms and compare responses between established physicians and those new to practice; we also assessed rates of burnout.MethodsAll family physicians credentialed within Vancouver Coastal Health in 2018 were invited to participate in a cross-sectional survey. Respondents were asked about their practice model and characteristics, demographics, level of burnout and reform priorities. We used χ2 tests and multivariable logistic regression to investigate associations between personal and practice characteristics, burnout and reform priorities.ResultsOf the 1017 family physicians invited to participate, 525 (51.6%) responded. Of these, 399 (76.0%) indicated a need for fundamental change to how primary care is delivered; 244 (46.4%) would prefer to be a clinic employee rather than a small business owner. Other reform priorities included options to practise in a team (stated as very important by 69.6% of respondents), direct funding for team roles (66.7%), direct clinic funding (59.8%), part-time work options (64.7%), and ability to take planned vacations and parental leave (81.1%). The importance of individual reform priorities varied based on the participants' model of practice, location and years in practice. Of respondents, 108 (21.1%) had experienced a high level of burnout.InterpretationAlmost half of family physicians would prefer to be employees rather than small business owners and over 20% reported a high level of burnout. Practice models offering direct employment model have very limited availability and are not included in the current suite of reforms in BC, potentially pulling physicians away from community-based family medicine and into other models or specialties.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient experience measures are widely used to compare performance at the individual physician level. OBJECTIVE:To assess the impact of unmeasured patient characteristics on visit-level patient experience measures and the sample sizes required to reliably measure patient experience at the primary care physician (PCP) level. DESIGN:Repeated cross-sectional design. SETTING:Academic family medicine practice in California. PARTICIPANTS:One thousand one hundred forty-one adult patients attending 1319 visits with 56 PCPs (including 45 resident and 11 faculty physicians). MEASUREMENTS:Post-visit patient experience surveys including patient measures used for standard adjustment as recommend by the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Consortium and additional patient characteristics used for expanded adjustment (including attitudes toward healthcare, global life satisfaction, patient personality, current symptom bother, and marital status). RESULTS:The amount of variance in patient experience explained doubled with expanded adjustment for patient characteristics compared with standard adjustment (R2 = 20.0% vs. 9.6%, respectively). With expanded adjustment, the amount of variance attributable to the PCP dropped from 6.1% to 3.4% and the required sample size to achieve a reliability of 0.90 in the physician-level patient experience measure increased from 138 to 255 patients per physician. After ranking of the 56 PCPs by average patient experience, 8 were reclassified into or out of the top or bottom quartiles of average experience with expanded as compared to standard adjustment [14.3% (95% CI: 7.0-25.2%)]. CONCLUSIONS:Widely used methods for measuring PCP-level patient experience may not account sufficiently for influential patient characteristics. If methods were adapted to account for these characteristics, patient sample sizes for reliable between-physician comparisons may be too large for most practices to obtain.

Dataset Information

Physician, Scribe, and Patient Perspectives on Clinical Scribes in Primary Care.

Background

Objective

Design

Participants

Key results

Conclusions

Publications

Physician, Scribe, and Patient Perspectives on Clinical Scribes in Primary Care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets