Dataset Information

Use of multifunctional electronic health records and burnout among primary care nurse practitioners.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Prevalence of electronic health records (EHRs) has significantly increased, and EHRs are a known contributor to clinician burnout. However, it is unknown whether the use of multifunctional EHRs is associated with nurse practitioner (NP) burnout in primary care practices. This is a major gap in the literature because 69% of practicing NPs deliver primary care services to patients.

Purpose

This study aimed to investigate whether the use of multifunctional EHRs is associated with primary care NP burnout.

Method

This study is a secondary analysis of cross-sectional survey data collected from NPs in two states (Pennsylvania and New Jersey). Nurse practitioners completed surveys measuring burnout, use of multifunctional EHRs, demographics, and characteristics of their practice. Use of multifunctional EHRs was operationalized using two items-computerized capabilities and electronic reminder systems. Burnout was measured using a validated, single item asking NPs to self-report their feelings of burnout. A multilevel cox regression model was built to test for associations between the use of multifunctional EHRs and NP burnout.

Results

Of 396 NPs included, 25.3% reported burnout. The use of multifunctional EHRs did not increase primary care NP burnout (risk ratio = 0.30, 95% confidence interval = 0.13-0.71, p = .01).

Implications for practice

With 25.3% of NPs burned out, it is imperative to reduce NP burnout. However, computerized capabilities and electronic reminder systems did not contribute to feelings of NP burnout. Future research examining other EHR components is needed to understand which features of the EHR contribute to NP burnout.

SUBMITTER: Abraham CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8351449 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceElectronic health records (EHRs) are considered a potentially significant contributor to clinician burnout.ObjectiveTo describe the association of EHR usage, sex, and work culture with burnout for 3 types of clinicians at an academic medical institution.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study of 1310 clinicians at a large tertiary care academic medical center analyzed EHR usage metrics for the month of April 2019 with results from a well-being survey from May 2019. Participants included attending physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), and house staff from various specialties. Data were analyzed between March 2020 and February 2021.ExposuresClinician demographic characteristics, EHR metadata, and an institution-wide survey.Main outcomes and measuresStudy metrics included clinician demographic data, burnout score, well-being measures, and EHR usage metadata.ResultsOf the 1310 clinicians analyzed, 542 (41.4%) were men (mean [SD] age, 47.3 [11.6] years; 448 [82.7%] White clinicians, 52 [9.6%] Asian clinicians, and 21 [3.9%] Black clinicians) and 768 (58.6%) were women (mean [SD] age, 42.6 [10.3] years; 573 [74.6%] White clinicians, 105 [13.7%] Asian clinicians, and 50 [6.5%] Black clinicians). Women reported more burnout (survey score ≥50: women, 423 [52.0%] vs men, 258 [47.6%]; P = .008) overall. No significant differences in EHR usage were found by sex for multiple metrics of time in the EHR, metrics of volume of clinical encounters, or differences in products of clinical care. Multivariate analysis of burnout revealed that work culture domains were significantly associated with self-reported results for commitment (odds ratio [OR], 0.542; 95% CI, 0.427-0.688; P < .001) and work-life balance (OR, 0.643; 95% CI, 0.559-0.739; P < .001). Clinician sex significantly contributed to burnout, with women having a greater likelihood of burnout compared with men (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.01-1.75; P = .04). An increased number of days spent using the EHR system was associated with less likelihood of burnout (OR, 0.966; 95% CI, 0.937-0.996; P = .03). Overall, EHR metrics accounted for 1.3% of model variance (P = .001) compared with work culture accounting for 17.6% of variance (P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, sex-based differences in EHR usage and burnout were found in clinicians. These results also suggest that local work culture factors may contribute more to burnout than metrics of EHR usage.

Project description:BackgroundThis integrative review synthesises research studies that have investigated the perceptions of nurse practitioners and medical practitioners working in primary health care. The aggregation of evidence on barriers and facilitators to working collaboratively and experiences about the processes of collaboration is of value to understand success factors and factors that impede collaborative working relationships.MethodsAn integrative review, which used systematic review processes, was undertaken to summarise qualitative and quantitative studies published between 1990 and 2012. Databases searched were the Cochrane Library, the Joanna Briggs Institute Library, PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Informit and ProQuest. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for quality. Study findings were extracted relating to a) barriers and facilitators to collaborative working and b) views and experiences about the process of collaboration. The findings were narratively synthesised, supported by tabulation.Results27 studies conducted in seven different countries met the inclusion criteria. Content analysis identified a number of barriers and facilitators of collaboration between nurse practitioners and medical practitioners. By means of data comparison five themes were developed in relation to perceptions and understanding of collaboration. Nurse practitioners and medical practitioners have differing views on the essentials of collaboration and on supervision and autonomous nurse practitioner practice. Medical practitioners who have a working experience with NPs express more positive attitudes towards collaboration. Both professional groups report concerns and negative experiences with collaborative practice but also value certain advantages of collaboration.ConclusionsThe review shows that working in collaboration is a slow progression. Exposure to working together helps to overcome professional hurdles, dispel concerns and provide clarity around roles and the meaning of collaboration of NPs and MPs. Guidelines on liability and better funding strategies are necessary to facilitate collaborative practice whether barriers lie in individual behaviours or in broader policies.