Dataset Information

Assessment of Electronic Health Record Use Between US and Non-US Health Systems.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Understanding 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.

Objective

To 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 participants

This 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.

Exposures

Clinician EHR use was tracked by deidentified and aggregated metadata across a variety of clinical activities.

Main outcomes and measures

Descriptive 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.

Results

A 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 relevance

This 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.

SUBMITTER: Holmgren AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7737152 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceElectronic health records are a potentially valuable source of information for identifying patients with opioid use disorder (OUD).ObjectiveTo evaluate whether proxy measures from electronic health record data can be used reliably to identify patients with probable OUD based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) (DSM-5) criteria.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed individuals within the Geisinger health system who were prescribed opioids between December 31, 2000, and May 31, 2017, using a mixed-methods approach. The cohort was identified from 16 253 patients enrolled in a contract-based, Geisinger-specific medication monitoring program (GMMP) for opioid use, including patients who maintained or violated contract terms, as well as a demographically matched control group of 16 253 patients who were prescribed opioids but not enrolled in the GMMP. Substance use diagnoses and psychiatric comorbidities were assessed using automated electronic health record summaries. A manual medical record review procedure using DSM-5 criteria for OUD was completed for a subset of patients. The analysis was conducted beginning from June 5, 2017, until May 29, 2020.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the prevalence of OUD as defined by proxy measures for DSM-5 criteria for OUD as well as the prevalence of comorbidities among patients prescribed opioids within an integrated health system.ResultsAmong the 16 253 patients enrolled in the GMMP (9309 women [57%]; mean [SD] age, 52 [14] years), OUD diagnoses as defined by diagnostic codes were present at a much lower rate than expected (291 [2%]), indicating the necessity for alternative diagnostic strategies. The DSM-5 criteria for OUD can be assessed using manual medical record review; a manual review of 200 patients in the GMMP and 200 control patients identifed a larger percentage of patients with probable moderate to severe OUD (GMMP, 145 of 200 [73%]; and control, 27 of 200 [14%]) compared with the prevalence of OUD assessed using diagnostic codes.Conclusions and relevanceThese results suggest that patients with OUD may be identified using information available in the electronic health record, even when diagnostic codes do not reflect this diagnosis. Furthermore, the study demonstrates the utility of coding for DSM-5 criteria from medical records to generate a quantitative DSM-5 score that is associated with OUD severity.

Project description:BackgroundElectronic health record (EHR) system users devise workarounds to cope with mismatches between workflows designed in the EHR and preferred workflows in practice. Although workarounds appear beneficial at first sight, they frequently jeopardize patient safety, the quality of care, and the efficiency of care.ObjectiveThis review aims to aid in identifying, analyzing, and resolving EHR workarounds; the Sociotechnical EHR Workaround Analysis (SEWA) framework was published in 2019. Although the framework was based on a large case study, the framework still required theoretical validation, refinement, and enrichment.MethodsA scoping literature review was performed on studies related to EHR workarounds published between 2010 and 2021 in the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, or IEEE databases. A total of 737 studies were retrieved, of which 62 (8.4%) were included in the final analysis. Using an analytic framework, the included studies were investigated to uncover the rationales that EHR users have for workarounds, attributes characterizing workarounds, possible scopes, and types of perceived impacts of workarounds.ResultsThe SEWA framework was theoretically validated and extended based on the scoping review. Extensive support for the pre-existing rationales, attributes, possible scopes, and types of impact was found in the included studies. Moreover, 7 new rationales, 4 new attributes, and 3 new types of impact were incorporated. Similarly, the descriptions of multiple pre-existing rationales for workarounds were refined to describe each rationale more accurately.ConclusionsSEWA is now grounded in the existing body of peer-reviewed empirical evidence on EHR workarounds and, as such, provides a theoretically validated and more complete synthesis of EHR workaround rationales, attributes, possible scopes, and types of impact. The revised SEWA framework can aid researchers and practitioners in a wider range of health care settings to identify, analyze, and resolve workarounds. This will improve user-centered EHR design and redesign, ultimately leading to improved patient safety, quality of care, and efficiency of care.

Project description:BackgroundHealth facilities in developing countries are increasingly adopting Electronic Health Records systems (EHRs) to support healthcare processes. However, only limited studies are available that assess the actual use of the EHRs once adopted in these settings. We assessed the state of the 376 KenyaEMR system (national EHRs) implementations in healthcare facilities offering HIV services in Kenya.MethodsThe study focused on seven EHRs use indicators. Six of the seven indicators were programmed and packaged into a query script for execution within each KenyaEMR system (KeEMRs) implementation to collect monthly server-log data for each indicator for the period 2012-2019. The indicators included: Staff system use, observations (clinical data volume), data exchange, standardized terminologies, patient identification, and automatic reports. The seventh indicator (EHR variable Completeness) was derived from routine data quality report within the EHRs. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, and multiple linear regression analysis was used to examine how individual facility characteristics affected the use of the system.Results213 facilities spanning 19 counties participated in the study. The mean number of authorized users who actively used the KeEMRs was 18.1% (SD = 13.1%, p<0.001) across the facilities. On average, the volume of clinical data (observations) captured in the EHRs was 3363 (SD = 4259). Only a few facilities(14.1%) had health data exchange capability. 97.6% of EHRs concept dictionary terms mapped to standardized terminologies such as CIEL. Within the facility EHRs, only 50.5% (SD = 35.4%, p< 0.001) of patients had the nationally-endorsed patient identifier number recorded. Multiple regression analysis indicated the need for improvement on the mode of EHRs use of implementation.ConclusionThe standard EHRs use indicators can effectively measure EHRs use and consequently determine success of the EHRs implementations. The results suggest that most of the EHRs use areas assessed need improvement, especially in relation to active usage of the system and data exchange readiness.

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.