Multicenter Analysis of Electronic Health Record Use among Ophthalmologists.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Baxter SL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7719588 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:To understand the attitudes and perceptions of ophthalmologists toward an electronic health record (EHR) system, before and after its clinical implementation.Ophthalmologists at a single large academic ophthalmology department were surveyed longitudinally before and after implementation of a new EHR system. The survey measured ophthalmologists' attitudes toward implementation of a new EHR. Questions focused on satisfaction, efficiency, and documentation. All attending physicians (between 56 and 61 at various time points) in the University of Michigan Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences were surveyed. We plotted positive responses to survey questions and assessed whether perceptions followed a J-curve with an initial decrease followed by an increase surpassing pre-implementation levels.Survey responses were received from 32 (52%) ophthalmologists pre-implementation, and 28 (46%) at 3 months, 35 (57%) at 7 months, 40 (71%) at 13 months and 39 (67%) at 24 months post-implementation. After EHR implementation respondents were more likely to express concerns about their ability to create high-quality documentation (p<0.01) and the impact of an electronic health record on meaningful patient interaction (p<0.01). Physicians did not report a significant change in the amount of time spent documenting outside of regular clinical work hours (p=0.54) or on their clinic efficiency and workflow (p=0.97). There was no significant change in overall job satisfaction during the study period (p=0.69). We did not observe a J-curve for any of the survey responses analyzed.As ophthalmology practices continue to transition to EHRs, adapting them to their specific culture and needs is important to maintain efficiency and user satisfaction. This study identifies areas of concern to ophthalmologists that may be addressed through education of physicians and customization of software as other practices move forward with EHR implementation.
| S-EPMC5228135 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveOutpatient clinics lack guidance for tackling modern efficiency and productivity demands. Workflow studies require large amounts of timing data that are prohibitively expensive to collect through observation or tracking devices. Electronic health records (EHRs) contain a vast amount of timing data - timestamps collected during regular use - that can be mapped to workflow steps. This study validates using EHR timestamp data to predict outpatient ophthalmology clinic workflow timings at Oregon Health and Science University and demonstrates their usefulness in 3 different studies.Materials and methodsFour outpatient ophthalmology clinics were observed to determine their workflows and to time each workflow step. EHR timestamps were mapped to the workflow steps and validated against the observed timings.ResultsThe EHR timestamp analysis produced times that were within 3 min of the observed times for >80% of the appointments. EHR use patterns affected the accuracy of using EHR timestamps to predict workflow times.DiscussionEHR timestamps provided a reasonable approximation of workflow and can be used for workflow studies. They can be used to create simulation models, analyze EHR use, and quantify the impact of trainees on workflow.ConclusionThe secondary use of EHR timestamp data is a valuable resource for clinical workflow studies. Sample timestamp data files and algorithms for processing them are provided and can be used as a template for more studies in other clinical specialties and settings.
| S-EPMC6080808 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6231887 | biostudies-other
Project description:The use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) can affect patient health and clinical care. However, the current documentation of e-cigarette use in the electronic health records (EHR) is inconsistent. This report outlines how the ambulatory clinical practices of a large U.S. hospital system optimized its electronic health records (EHR) framework to better record e-cigarettes used by patients. The new EHR section for e-cigarette information was implemented for outpatient appointments. During a 30-week evaluation period post-implementation, 638,804 patients (12 yrs and older) completed ambulatory appointments within the health system; of these, the new section contained e-cigarette use information for 37,906 (6%) patients. Among these patients, 1005 (2.7%) were identified as current e-cigarette users (current every day or current some day e-cigarette use), 941 (2.5%) were reported as former e-cigarette users, and 35,960 (94%) had never used e-cigarettes. A separate EHR section to document e-cigarette use is feasible within existing clinical practice models. Utilization of the new section was modest in routine clinical practice, indicating the need for more intensive implementation strategies that emphasize the health effects of e-cigarette use, and how consistent ascertainment could improve clinical practice.
| S-EPMC7460036 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo understand the use of electronic health record (EHR) functionalities by physicians practicing in an underserved setting.Data source/study settingA total of 333 Indian Health Service physicians (55 percent response rate) in August 2012.Study designCross-sectional.Data collectionThe survey assessed routine use of EHR functionalities, perceived usefulness, and barriers to adoption.Principal findingsPhysicians routinely used a median 7 of 10 EHR functionalities targeted by the Meaningful Use program, but only 5 percent used all 10. Most (63 percent) felt the EHR improved quality of care. Many (76 percent) reported increased documentation time and poorer quality patient-physician interactions (45 percent). Primary care specialty and time using the EHR were positively associated with use of EHR functionalities, while perceived productivity loss was negatively associated.ConclusionsSignificant opportunities exist to increase use of EHR functionalities and preserve physician-patient interactions and productivity in a resource-limited environment.
| S-EPMC5517683 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether physicians' reported electronic health record (EHR) use provides clinical benefits and whether benefits depend on using an EHR meeting Meaningful Use criteria or length of EHR experience.Data sourceThe 2011 Physician Workflow study, representative of U.S. office-based physicians.Study designCross-sectional data were used to examine the association of EHR use with enhanced patient care overall and nine specific clinical benefits.Principal findingsMost physicians with EHRs reported EHR use enhanced patient care overall (78 percent), helped them access a patient's chart remotely (81 percent), and alerted them to a potential medication error (65 percent) and critical lab values (62 percent). Between 30 and 50 percent of physicians reported that EHR use was associated with clinical benefits related to providing recommended care, ordering appropriate tests, and facilitating patient communication. Using EHRs that met Meaningful Use criteria and having 2 or more years of EHR experience were independently associated with reported benefits. Physicians with EHRs meeting Meaningful Use criteria and longer EHR experience were most likely to report benefits across all 10 measures.ConclusionsPhysicians reported EHR use enhanced patient care overall. Clinical benefits were most likely to be reported by physicians using EHRs meeting Meaningful Use criteria and longer EHR experience.
| S-EPMC3925409 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims
The Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) has funded the development of a patient controlled “Personal Electronic Health Record” (PEPA) as part of their current INFOPAT project. PEPA allows for the exchange of medical data between all interested groups, including the patients thenselves. A PEPA contains medical reports and findings including, for example, x-rays, CT scans and MRIs. The patients can safeguard their information and access all content. The aim of this study is to test the PEPA-prototype for cancer patients being treated at the National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) in Heidelberg.
Who can participate?
Adult colorectal cancer patients being treated at the National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) in Heidelberg.
What does the study involve?
There are two part to this study. The first part involves focus groups, in which a group of people are asked their opinion and attitudes towards, for example, an idea, product or service. Here, focus groups are set up that involve the patients, doctors and other health professionals to discuss current problems with the coordination of care offered to cancer patients, as well as discuss what people want to get from using PEPA (i.e. user requirements). The PEPA-prototype is then developed taking into account the conclusions from the focus groups. In the second part of the study, patients are encouraged to use the PEPA-prototype to prepare and follow up meetings with their physicians.
| 2424890 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:PurposeTo investigate ophthalmologists' rate of attestation to meaningful use (MU) of their electronic health record (EHR) systems in the Medicare EHR Incentive Program and their continuity and success in receiving payments in comparison with other specialties.DesignAdministrative database study.ParticipantsEligible professionals participating in the Medicare EHR Incentive Program.MethodsBased on publicly available data sources, subsets of payment and attestation data were created for ophthalmologists and for other specialties. The number of eligible professionals attesting was determined using the attestation data for each year and stage of the program. The proportion of attestations by EHR vendor was calculated using all attestations for each vendor.Main outcome measuresNumbers of ophthalmologists attesting by year and stage of the Medicare EHR Incentive Program, incentive payments, and number of attestations by EHR vendor.ResultsIn the peak year of participation, 51.6% of ophthalmologists successfully attested to MU, compared with 37.1% of optometrists, 50.2% of dermatologists, 54.5% of otolaryngologists, and 64.4% of urologists. Across the 6 years of the program, ophthalmologists received an average of $17 942 in incentive payments compared with $11 105 for optometrists, $16 617 for dermatologists, $20 203 for otolaryngologists, and $23 821 for urologists. Epic and Nextgen were the most frequently used EHRs for attestation by ophthalmologists.ConclusionsOphthalmology as a specialty performed better than optometry and dermatology, but worse than otolaryngology and urology, in terms of the proportion of eligible professionals attesting to MU of EHRs. Ophthalmologists were more likely to remain in the program after their initial year of attestation compared with all eligible providers. The top 4 EHR vendors accounted for 50% of attestations by ophthalmologists.
| S-EPMC6662572 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether electronic health record alerts for acute kidney injury would improve patient outcomes of mortality, dialysis, and progression of acute kidney injury.DesignDouble blinded, multicenter, parallel, randomized controlled trial.SettingSix hospitals (four teaching and two non-teaching) in the Yale New Haven Health System in Connecticut and Rhode Island, US, ranging from small community hospitals to large tertiary care centers.Participants6030 adult inpatients with acute kidney injury, as defined by the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) creatinine criteria.InterventionsAn electronic health record based "pop-up" alert for acute kidney injury with an associated acute kidney injury order set upon provider opening of the patient's medical record.Main outcome measuresA composite of progression of acute kidney injury, receipt of dialysis, or death within 14 days of randomization. Prespecified secondary outcomes included outcomes at each hospital and frequency of various care practices for acute kidney injury.Results6030 patients were randomized over 22 months. The primary outcome occurred in 653 (21.3%) of 3059 patients with an alert and in 622 (20.9%) of 2971 patients receiving usual care (relative risk 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.13, P=0.67). Analysis by each hospital showed worse outcomes in the two non-teaching hospitals (n=765, 13%), where alerts were associated with a higher risk of the primary outcome (relative risk 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.98, P=0.006). More deaths occurred at these centers (15.6% in the alert group v 8.6% in the usual care group, P=0.003). Certain acute kidney injury care practices were increased in the alert group but did not appear to mediate these outcomes.ConclusionsAlerts did not reduce the risk of our primary outcome among patients in hospital with acute kidney injury. The heterogeneity of effect across clinical centers should lead to a re-evaluation of existing alerting systems for acute kidney injury.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02753751.
| S-EPMC8034420 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceUnderstanding how the electronic health record (EHR) system changes clinician work, productivity, and well-being is critical. Little is known regarding global variation in patterns of use.ObjectiveTo provide insights into which EHR activities clinicians spend their time doing, the EHR tools they use, the system messages they receive, and the amount of time they spend using the EHR after hours.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study analyzed the deidentified metadata of ambulatory care health systems in the US, Canada, Northern Europe, Western Europe, the Middle East, and Oceania from January 1, 2019, to August 31, 2019. All of these organizations used the EHR software from Epic Systems and represented most of Epic Systems's ambulatory customer base. The sample included all clinicians with scheduled patient appointments, such as physicians and advanced practice practitioners.ExposuresClinician EHR use was tracked by deidentified and aggregated metadata across a variety of clinical activities.Main outcomes and measuresDescriptive statistics for clinician EHR use included time spent on clinical activities, note documentation (as measured by the percentage of characters in the note generated by automated or manual data entry source), messages received, and time spent after hours.ResultsA total of 371 health systems were included in the sample, of which 348 (93.8%) were located in the US and 23 (6.2%) were located in other countries. US clinicians spent more time per day actively using the EHR compared with non-US clinicians (mean time, 90.2 minutes vs 59.1 minutes; P < .001). In addition, US clinicians vs non-US clinicians spent significantly more time performing 4 clinical activities: notes (40.7 minutes vs 30.7 minutes; P < .001), orders (19.5 minutes vs 8.75 minutes; P < .001), in-basket messages (12.5 minutes vs 4.80 minutes; P < .001), and clinical review (17.6 minutes vs 14.8 minutes; P = .01). Clinicians in the US composed more automated note text than their non-US counterparts (77.5% vs 60.8% of note text; P < .001) and received statistically significantly more messages per day (33.8 vs 12.8; P < .001). Furthermore, US clinicians used the EHR for a longer time after hours, logging in 26.5 minutes per day vs 19.5 minutes per day for non-US clinicians (P = .01). The median US clinician spent as much time actively using the EHR per day (90.1 minutes) as a non-US clinician in the 99th percentile of active EHR use time per day (90.7 minutes) in the sample. These results persisted after controlling for organizational characteristics, including structure, type, size, and daily patient volume.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that US clinicians compared with their non-US counterparts spent substantially more time actively using the EHR for a wide range of clinical activities or tasks. This finding suggests that US clinicians have a greater EHR burden that may be associated with nontechnical factors, which policy makers and health system leaders should consider when addressing clinician wellness.
| S-EPMC7737152 | biostudies-literature