Dataset Information

Impact of a medical scribe on clinical efficiency and quality in an academic general internal medicine practice.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Scribes have been proposed as an intervention to decrease physician electronic health record (EHR) workload and improve clinical quality. We aimed to assess the impact of a scribe on clinical efficiency and quality in an academic internal medicine practice.

Methods

Six faculty physicians worked with one scribe at an urban academic general internal medicine clinic April through June 2017. Patient visits during the 3 months prior to intervention (baseline, n = 789), unscribed visits during the intervention (concurrent control, n = 605), and scribed visits (n = 579) were included in the study. Clinical efficiency outcomes included time to close encounter, patient time in clinic, and number of visits per clinic session. Quality outcomes included EHR note quality, rates of medication and immunization review, population of patient instructions, reconciliation of outside information, and completion of preventative health recommendations.

Results

Median time to close encounter (IQR) was lower for scribed visits [0.4 (4.8) days] compared to baseline and unscribed visits [1.2 (5.9) and 2.9 (5.4) days, both p < 0.001]. Scribed notes were more likely to have a clear history of present illness (HPI) [OR = 7.30 (2.35-22.7), p = 0.001] and sufficient HPI information [OR = 2.21 (1.13-4.35), p = 0.02] compared to unscribed notes. Physicians were more likely to review the medication list during scribed vs. baseline visits [OR = 1.70 (1.22-2.35), p = 0.002]. No differences were found in the number of visits per clinic session, patient time in clinic, completion of preventative health recommendations, or other outcomes.

Conclusions

Working with a scribe in an academic internal medicine practice was associated with more timely documentation.

SUBMITTER: Piersa AP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8272908 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: The quality of care for diabetes continues to fall short of recommended guidelines and results. Models for improving the care of chronic illnesses advocate a multidisciplinary team approach. Yet little is known about the effectiveness of such models in an academic setting with a diverse patient population and resident physicians participating in clinical care. OBJECTIVE: To implement a chronic illness management (CIM) practice within an academic setting with part-time providers, and evaluate its impact on the completion of diabetes-specific care processes and on the achievement of recommended outcomes for patients with diabetes mellitus. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study SUBJECTS: Patients with the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus who receive their primary care in an academic general internal medicine resident-faculty practice. MEASUREMENTS: Process and outcomes measures in patients exposed to the CIM practice were compared with non-exposed patients receiving usual care. MAIN RESULTS: Five hundred and sixty-five patients met inclusion criteria. Patients in the CIM practice experienced a significant increase in completion of care processes compared to control patients for measurement of annual low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.7-5.7), urine microalbumin (OR 3.3, 95% CI 2.1-5.5), blood pressure (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1-2.8), retinal examination (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3-2.7), foot monofilament examination (OR 4.2, 95% CI 3.0-6.1) and administration of pneumococcal vaccination (OR 5.2, 95% CI 3.0-9.3). CIM-exposed patients were also more likely to achieve improvements in clinical outcomes of glycemic and blood pressure control reflected by hemoglobin A1c less than 7.0% (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.02-3) and blood pressure less than 130/80 (OR 2.8, 95% CI 2.1-4.5) compared to controls. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic chronic care model can be successfully integrated into an academic general internal medicine practice and may result in improved processes of care and some clinical outcomes for diabetic patients. This study provides a model for further hypothesis generation and more rigorous testing of the quality benefits of structured chronic illness care in diverse outpatient practices.

Project description:BackgroundGeneral internal medicine (GIM) careers are increasingly viewed as challenging and unsustainable.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess academic GIM worklife and determine remediable predictors of stress and burnout.DesignWe conducted an email survey.ParticipantsPhysicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants in 15 GIM divisions participated.Main measuresA ten-item survey queried stress, burnout, and work conditions such as electronic medical record (EMR) challenges. An open-ended question assessed stressors and solutions. Results were categorized into burnout, high stress, high control, chaos, good teamwork, high values alignment, documentation time pressure, and excessive home EMR use. Frequencies were determined for national data, Veterans Affairs (VA) versus civilian populations, and hospitalist versus ambulatory roles. A General Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) evaluated associations with burnout. A formal content analysis was performed for open-ended question responses.Key resultsOf 1235 clinicians sampled, 579 responded (47 %). High stress was present in 67 %, with 38 % burned out (burnout range 10-56 % by division). Half of respondents had low work control, 60 % reported high documentation time pressure, half described too much home EMR time, and most reported very busy or chaotic workplaces. Two-thirds felt aligned with departmental leaders' values, and three-quarters were satisfied with teamwork. Burnout was associated with high stress, low work control, and low values alignment with leaders (all p < 0.001). The 45 VA faculty had less burnout than civilian counterparts (17 % vs. 40 %, p < 0.05). Hospitalists described better teamwork than ambulatory clinicians and fewer hospitalists noted documentation time pressure (both p < 0.001). Key themes from the qualitative analysis were short visits, insufficient support staff, a Relative Value Unit mentality, documentation time pressure, and undervaluing education.ConclusionsWhile GIM divisions overall demonstrate high stress and burnout, division rates vary widely. Sustainability efforts within GIM could focus on visit length, staff support, schedule control, clinic chaos, and EMR stress.

Project description:BackgroundIdentifying potentially avoidable admissions to Canadian hospitals is an important health system goal. With general internal medicine (GIM) accounting for 40% of hospital admissions, we sought to develop a method to identify potentially avoidable admissions and characterize patient, provider and health system factors.MethodsWe conducted an observational study of GIM admissions at our institution from August 2019 to February 2020. We defined potentially avoidable admissions as admissions that could be managed in an appropriate and safe manner in the emergency department or ambulatory setting and asked staff physicians to screen admissions daily and flag candidates as potentially avoidable admissions. For each candidate, we prepared a case review and debriefed with members of the admitting team. We then reviewed each candidate with our research team, assigned an avoidability score (1 [low] to 4 [high]) and identified contributing factors for those with scores of 3 or more.ResultsWe screened 601 total admissions and staff physicians flagged 117 (19.5%) of these as candidate potential avoidable admissions. Consensus review identified 67 candidates as potentially avoidable admissions (11.1%, 95% confidence interval 8.8%-13.9%); these patients were younger (mean age 65 yr v. 72 yr), had fewer comorbidities (Canadian Institute for Health Information Case Mix Group+ 0.42 v. 1.14), had lower resource-intensity weighting scores (0.72 v. 1.50) and shorter hospital lengths of stay (29 h v. 105 h) (p < 0.01). Common factors included diagnostic and therapeutic uncertainty, perceived need for short-term monitoring, government directive of a 4-hour limit for admission decision-making and subspecialist request to admit.InterpretationOur prospective method of screening, flagging and case review showed that 1 in 9 GIM admissions were potentially avoidable. Other institutions could consider adapting this methodology to ascertain their rate of potentially avoidable admissions and to understand contributing factors to inform improvement endeavours.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of telemedicine has increased dramatically through the COVID-19 pandemic. Although data are available about patient satisfaction with telemedicine, little is known about immigrant patients' experience.ObjectiveWe sought to investigate patients' experiences with telehealth compared to in- person visits between immigrants and nonimmigrants. We wanted to identify and describe next visit preferences within the Farmington University of Connecticut Internal Medicine practice to ultimately guide suggestions for more equitable use and accessibility of visit options.MethodsA total of 270 patients including 122 immigrants and 148 nonimmigrants were seen by 4 Internal Medicine providers in an in-person (n=132) or telemedicine (n=138) university practice setting. Patients were queried between February and April 2021, using an adaptation of a previously validated patient satisfaction survey that contained standard questions developed by the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Program. Patients seen via in-person visits completed a paper copy of the survey. The same survey was administered by a follow-up phone call for telemedicine visits. Patients surveyed spoke English, Spanish, or Arabic and were surveyed in their preferred language. For televisits, the same survey was read to the patient by a certified translator. The survey consisted of 10 questions on a Likert scale of 1-5. Of them, 9 questions assessed patient satisfaction under the categories of access to care, interpersonal interaction, and quality of care. An additional question asked patients to describe and explain the reasons behind next visit preferences. Survey question responses were compared by paired t tests.ResultsAcross both immigrant and nonimmigrant patient populations, satisfaction with perceived quality of care was high, regardless of visit type (P=.80, P=.60 for televisits and P=.76, P=.37 for in-person visits). During televisits, immigrants were more likely to feel providers spent sufficient time with them (P<.001). Different perceptions were noted among nonimmigrant patients. Nonimmigrants tended to perceive more provider time during in-person visits (P=.006). When asked to comment on reasons behind next televisit preference, nonimmigrant patients prioritized convenience, whereas immigrants noted not having to navigate office logistics. For those who chose in-person visits, both groups prioritized the need for a physical exam.ConclusionsAlthough satisfaction was high for both telemedicine and in-person visits across immigrant and nonimmigrant populations, significant differences in patient priorities were identified. Immigrants found televisits desirable because they felt they spent more time with providers and were able to avoid additional office logistics that are often challenging barriers for non-English speakers. This suggests opportunities to use information technology to provide cultural and language-appropriate information throughout immigrants' in-person and telemedicine visit experience. A focus on diminishing these barriers will help reduce health care inequities among immigrant patients.

Project description:BackgroundThere remains a paucity of evidence for curricula for the transition to practice (TTP) stage of Competence by Design internal medicine (IM) training programs. Current entrustable professional activities are based on expert consensus rather than robust subspecialty-specific needs assessment.MethodsA scoping review was completed to identify studies with TTP focus. A national survey was conducted to identify transition experiences for general internal medicine physicians. Results were assessed by grounded theory analysis to identify core topics for TTP curricula.ResultsNeither scoping review nor national survey identified TTP topics related to the CanMEDS Medical Expert role. Scoping Review: 41 relevant studies were identified. Most (97.6%) were from North America. The most common study types were observational (survey) or curriculum (13/41 31.7% for each). Only two studies were exclusively in IM, and the most common subspecialty studied was surgical (13/41, 31.7%). The most common TTP topics were mentorship, billing and coding, practice management, negotiating contract and job, and financial aspects of practice. National Survey: There were 44 respondents, with the majority (25/44, 56.8%) having completed an IM subspecialty fellowship. Most (38/44) completed medical school in Canada, and most were from academic practice settings (33/44, 75.0%). The most common TTP topics were billing and coding, personal financial planning, practice management, work-life balance and mentorship. Grounded Theory Analysis: There were six themes that encompassed all TTP topics from the scoping review and national survey, being (i) building a career, (ii) continuing professional development, (iii) expectations of the profession, (iv) practice management, (v) Life, health and well-being and (vi) clinical skills. Curriculum competencies and resources for curriculum development were provided.ConclusionsThis study identifies topics critical for curricula development for IM transition to practice. Further research is required to evaluate effectiveness of curricula including topics and themes developed from this scoping review and national survey.

Project description:Telehealth services, specifically telemedicine audio-video and audio-only patient encounters, expanded dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic through temporary waivers and flexibilities tied to the public health emergency. Early studies demonstrate significant potential to advance the quintuple aim (patient experience, health outcomes, cost, clinician well-being, and equity). Supported well, telemedicine can particularly improve patient satisfaction, health outcomes, and equity. Implemented poorly, telemedicine can facilitate unsafe care, worsen disparities, and waste resources. Without further action from lawmakers and agencies, payment will end for many telemedicine services currently used by millions of Americans at the end of 2024. Policymakers, health systems, clinicians, and educators must decide how to support, implement, and sustain telemedicine, and long-term studies and clinical practice guidelines are emerging to provide direction. In this position statement, we use clinical vignettes to review relevant literature and highlight where key actions are needed. These include areas where telemedicine must be expanded (e.g., to support chronic disease management) and where guidelines are needed (e.g., to prevent inequitable offering of telemedicine services and prevent unsafe or low-value care). We provide policy, clinical practice, and education recommendations for telemedicine on behalf of the Society of General Internal Medicine. Policy recommendations include ending geographic and site restrictions, expanding the definition of telemedicine to include audio-only services, establishing appropriate telemedicine service codes, and expanding broadband access to all Americans. Clinical practice recommendations include ensuring appropriate telemedicine use (for limited acute care situations or in conjunction with in-person services to extend longitudinal care relationships), that the choice of modality be done through patient-clinician shared decision-making, and that health systems design telemedicine services through community partnerships to ensure equitable implementation. Education recommendations include developing telemedicine-specific educational strategies for trainees that align with accreditation body competencies and providing educators with protected time and faculty development resources.