Dataset Information

Exploring the relationship between electronic health records and provider burnout: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Stress and burnout due to electronic health record (EHR) technology has become a focus for burnout intervention. The aim of this study is to systematically review the relationship between EHR use and provider burnout.

Materials and methods

A systematic literature search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, PsychInfo, ACM Digital Library in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. Inclusion criterion was original research investigating the association between EHR and provider burnout. Studies that did not measure the association objectively were excluded. Study quality was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument. Qualitative synthesis was also performed.

Results

Twenty-six studies met inclusion criteria. The median sample size of providers was 810 (total 20 885; 44% male; mean age 53 [range, 34-56] years). Twenty-three (88%) studies were cross-sectional studies and 3 were single-arm cohort studies measuring pre- and postintervention burnout prevalence. Burnout was assessed objectively with various validated instruments. Insufficient time for documentation (odds ratio [OR], 1.40-5.83), high inbox or patient call message volumes (OR, 2.06-6.17), and negative perceptions of EHR by providers (OR, 2.17-2.44) were the 3 most cited EHR-related factors associated with higher rates of provider burnout that was assessed objectively.

Conclusions

The included studies were mostly observational studies; thus, we were not able to determine a causal relationship. Currently, there are few studies that objectively assessed the relationship between EHR use and provider burnout. The 3 most cited EHR factors associated with burnout were confirmed and should be the focus of efforts to improve EHR-related provider burnout.

SUBMITTER: Yan Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8068439 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exploring the relationship between electronic health records and provider burnout: A systematic review.

Yan Qi Q Jiang Zheng Z Harbin Zachary Z Tolbert Preston H PH Davies Mark G MG

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA 20210401 5

<h4>Objective</h4>Stress and burnout due to electronic health record (EHR) technology has become a focus for burnout intervention. The aim of this study is to systematically review the relationship between EHR use and provider burnout.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>A systematic literature search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, PsychInfo, ACM Digital Library in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. Inclusion criterion was origin ...[more]

PMID: 33659988

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAs the availability of interoperable electronic health records (iEHRs) or health information exchanges (HIEs) continues to increase, there is greater need and opportunity to assess the current evidence base on what works and what does not regarding the adoption, use, and impact of iEHRs.ObjectiveThe purpose of this project is to assess the international evidence base on the adoption, use, and impact of iEHRs.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review, searching multiple databases-MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)-with supplemental searches conducted in Google Scholar and grey literature sources (ie, Google, Grey Literature Report, and OpenGrey). All searches were conducted in January and February 2017. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were published in English, were published from 2006 to 2017, and were either an original research study or a literature review. In order to be included, articles needed to focus on iEHRs and HIEs across multiple health care settings, as well as on the impact and effectiveness of iEHR adoption and use.ResultsWe included 130 articles in the synthesis (113 primary studies, 86.9%; 17 reviews, 13.1%), with the majority focused on the United States (88/130, 67.7%). The primary studies focused on a wide range of health care settings; the three most prevalent settings studied included acute care (59/113, 52.2%), primary care (44/113, 38.9%), and emergency departments (34/113, 30.1%). We identified 29 distinct measurement items in the 113 primary studies that were linked to 522 specific measurement outcomes. Productivity and quality were the two evaluation dimensions that received the most attention, accounting for 14 of 29 (48%) measurement items and 306 of 522 (58.6%) measurement outcomes identified. Overall, the majority of the 522 measurement outcomes were positive (298/522, 57.1%). We also identified 17 reviews on iEHR use and impact, 6 (35%) that focused on barriers and facilitators to adoption and implementation and 11 (65%) that focused on benefits and impacts, with the more recent reviews finding little generalizable evidence of benefit and impact.ConclusionsThis review captures the status of an evolving and active field focused on the use and impact of iEHRs. While the overall findings suggest many positive impacts, the quality of the primary studies were not evaluated systematically. When broken down by specific measurement item, the results directed attention both to measurement outcomes that were consistently positive and others that were mostly negative or equivocal.

Project description:Long-term care (LTC) facilities are an important part of the health care industry, providing care to the fastest-growing group of the population. However, the adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) in LTC facilities lags behind other areas of the health care industry. One of the reasons for the lack of widespread adoption in the United States is that LTC facilities are not eligible for incentives under the Meaningful Use program. Implementation of an EHR system in an LTC facility can potentially enhance the quality of care, provided it is appropriately implemented, used, and maintained. Unfortunately, the lag in adoption of the EHR in LTC creates a paucity of literature on the benefits of EHR implementation in LTC facilities.The objective of this systematic review was to identify the potential benefits of implementing an EHR system in LTC facilities. The study also aims to identify the common conditions and EHR features that received favorable remarks from providers and the discrepancies that needed improvement to build up momentum across LTC settings in adopting this technology.The authors conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), and MEDLINE databases. Papers were analyzed by multiple referees to filter out studies not germane to our research objective. A final sample of 28 papers was selected to be included in the systematic review.Results of this systematic review conclude that EHRs show significant improvement in the management of documentation in LTC facilities and enhanced quality outcomes. Approximately 43% (12/28) of the papers reported a mixed impact of EHRs on the management of documentation, and 33% (9/28) of papers reported positive quality outcomes using EHRs. Surprisingly, very few papers demonstrated an impact on patient satisfaction, physician satisfaction, the length of stay, and productivity using EHRs.Overall, implementation of EHRs has been found to be effective in the few LTC facilities that have implemented them. Implementation of EHRs in LTC facilities caused improved management of clinical documentation that enabled better decision making.

Project description:BackgroundElectronic personal health records (ePHRs) are defined as electronic applications through which individuals can access, manage, and share health information in a private, secure, and confidential environment. Existing evidence shows their benefits in improving outcomes, especially for chronic disease patients. However, their use has not been as widespread as expected partly due to barriers faced in their adoption and use. We aimed to identify the types of barriers to a patient, provider, and caregiver adoption/use of ePHRs and to analyze their extent in chronic disease care.MethodsA systematic search in Medline, PubMed, Science Direct, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) database was performed to find original studies assessing barriers to ePHR adoption/use in chronic care until the end of 2018. Two researchers independently screened and extracted data. We used the PHR adoption model and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology to analyze the results. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 was used to assess the quality of evidence in the included studies.ResultsSixty publications met our inclusion criteria. Issues found hindering ePHR adoption/use in chronic disease care were associated with demographic factors (e.g., patient age and gender) along with key variables related to health status, computer literacy, preferences for direct communication, and patient's strategy for coping with a chronic condition; as well as factors related to medical practice/environment (e.g., providers' lack of interest or resistance to adopting ePHRs due to workload, lack of reimbursement, and lack of user training); technological (e.g., concerns over privacy and security, interoperability with electronic health record systems, and lack of customized features for chronic conditions); and chronic disease characteristics (e.g., multiplicities of co-morbid conditions, settings, and providers involved in chronic care).ConclusionsePHRs can be meaningfully used in chronic disease care if they are implemented as a component of comprehensive care models specifically developed for this care. Our results provide insight into hurdles and barriers mitigating ePHR adoption/use in chronic disease care. A deeper understating of the interplay between these barriers will provide opportunities that can lead to an enhanced ePHR adoption/use.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare providers are often targeted as research participants, especially for implementation science studies evaluating provider- or system-level issues. Frequently, provider eligibility is based on both provider and patient factors. Manual chart review and self-report are common provider screening strategies but require substantial time, effort, and resources. The automated use of electronic health record (EHR) data may streamline provider identification for implementation science research. Here, we describe an approach to provider screening for a Veterans Health Administration (VHA)-funded study focused on implementing risk-aligned surveillance for bladder cancer patients.MethodsOur goal was to identify providers at 6 pre-specified facilities who performed ≥10 surveillance cystoscopy procedures among bladder cancer patients in the 12 months prior to recruitment start on January 16, 2020, and who were currently practicing at 1 of 6 pre-specified facilities. Using VHA EHR data (using CPT, ICD10 procedure, and ICD10 diagnosis codes), we identified cystoscopy procedures performed after an initial bladder cancer diagnosis (i.e., surveillance procedures). Procedures were linked to VHA staff data to determine the provider of record, the number of cystoscopies they performed, and their current location of practice. To validate this approach, we performed a chart review of 105 procedures performed by a random sample of identified providers. The proportion of correctly identified procedures was calculated (Positive Predictive Value (PPV)), along with binomial 95% confidence intervals (CI).FindingsWe identified 1,917,856 cystoscopies performed on 703,324 patients from October 1, 1999-January 16, 2020, across the nationwide VHA. Of those procedures, 40% were done on patients who had a prior record of bladder cancer and were completed by 15,065 distinct providers. Of those, 61 performed ≥ 10 procedures and were currently practicing at 1 of the 6 facilities of interest in the 1 year prior to study recruitment. The random chart review of 7 providers found 101 of 105 procedures (PPV: 96%; 95% CI: 91% to 99%) were surveillance procedures and were performed by the selected provider on the recorded date.ImplicationsThese results show that EHR data can be used for accurate identification of healthcare providers as research participants when inclusion criteria consist of both patient- (temporal relationship between diagnosis and procedure) and provider-level (frequency of procedure and location of current practice) factors. As administrative codes and provider identifiers are collected in most, if not all, EHRs for billing purposes this approach can be translated from provider recruitment in VHA to other healthcare systems. Implementation studies should consider this method of screening providers.

Project description:Background:Whether health care provider burnout contributes to lower quality of patient care is unclear. Purpose:To estimate the overall relationship between burnout and quality of care and to evaluate whether published studies provide exaggerated estimates of this relationship. Data Sources:MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Health and Psychosocial Instruments (EBSCO), Mental Measurements Yearbook (EBSCO), EMBASE (Elsevier), and Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), with no language restrictions, from inception through 28 May 2019. Study Selection:Peer-reviewed publications, in any language, quantifying health care provider burnout in relation to quality of patient care. Data Extraction:2 reviewers independently selected studies, extracted measures of association of burnout and quality of care, and assessed potential bias by using the Ioannidis (excess significance) and Egger (small-study effect) tests. Data Synthesis:A total of 11 703 citations were identified, from which 123 publications with 142 study populations encompassing 241 553 health care providers were selected. Quality-of-care outcomes were grouped into 5 categories: best practices (n = 14), communication (n = 5), medical errors (n = 32), patient outcomes (n = 17), and quality and safety (n = 74). Relations between burnout and quality of care were highly heterogeneous (I2 = 93.4% to 98.8%). Of 114 unique burnout-quality combinations, 58 indicated burnout related to poor-quality care, 6 indicated burnout related to high-quality care, and 50 showed no significant effect. Excess significance was apparent (73% of studies observed vs. 62% predicted to have statistically significant results; P = 0.011). This indicator of potential bias was most prominent for the least-rigorous quality measures of best practices and quality and safety. Limitation:Studies were primarily observational; neither causality nor directionality could be determined. Conclusion:Burnout in health care professionals frequently is associated with poor-quality care in the published literature. The true effect size may be smaller than reported. Future studies should prespecify outcomes to reduce the risk for exaggerated effect size estimates. Primary Funding Source:Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute.

Dataset Information

Exploring the relationship between electronic health records and provider burnout: A systematic review.

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Exploring the relationship between electronic health records and provider burnout: A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets