1
|
Murad MH, Vaa Stelling BE, West CP, Hasan B, Simha S, Saadi S, Firwana M, Viola KE, Prokop LJ, Nayfeh T, Wang Z. Measuring Documentation Burden in Healthcare. J Gen Intern Med 2024; 39:2837-2848. [PMID: 39073484 PMCID: PMC11534919 DOI: 10.1007/s11606-024-08956-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2024] [Accepted: 07/17/2024] [Indexed: 07/30/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The enactment of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and the wide adoption of electronic health record (EHR) systems have ushered in increasing documentation burden, frequently cited as a key factor affecting the work experience of healthcare professionals and a contributor to burnout. This systematic review aims to identify and characterize measures of documentation burden. METHODS We integrated discussions with Key Informants and a comprehensive search of the literature, including MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and gray literature published between 2010 and 2023. Data were narratively and thematically synthesized. RESULTS We identified 135 articles about measuring documentation burden. We classified measures into 11 categories: overall time spent in EHR, activities related to clinical documentation, inbox management, time spent in clinical review, time spent in orders, work outside work/after hours, administrative tasks (billing and insurance related), fragmentation of workflow, measures of efficiency, EHR activity rate, and usability. The most common source of data for most measures was EHR usage logs. Direct tracking such as through time-motion analysis was fairly uncommon. Measures were developed and applied across various settings and populations, with physicians and nurses in the USA being the most frequently represented healthcare professionals. Evidence of validity of these measures was limited and incomplete. Data on the appropriateness of measures in terms of scalability, feasibility, or equity across various contexts were limited. The physician perspective was the most robustly captured and prominently focused on increased stress and burnout. DISCUSSION Numerous measures for documentation burden are available and have been tested in a variety of settings and contexts. However, most are one-dimensional, do not capture various domains of this construct, and lack robust validity evidence. This report serves as a call to action highlighting an urgent need for measure development that represents diverse clinical contexts and support future interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Hassan Murad
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Healthcare Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
| | - Brianna E Vaa Stelling
- Division of Community Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Colin P West
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Bashar Hasan
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Healthcare Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Suvyaktha Simha
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Healthcare Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Samer Saadi
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Healthcare Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Mohammed Firwana
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Healthcare Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Kelly E Viola
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Healthcare Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | - Tarek Nayfeh
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Healthcare Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Zhen Wang
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Healthcare Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Anastasio AT, Baumann AN, Curtis DP, Rogers H, Hogge C, Ryan SF, Walley KC, Adams SB. An examination of negative one-star patient reviews for foot and ankle orthopedic surgery: A retrospective analysis. Foot Ankle Surg 2024; 30:252-257. [PMID: 38195290 DOI: 10.1016/j.fas.2023.12.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/13/2023] [Revised: 11/21/2023] [Accepted: 12/22/2023] [Indexed: 01/11/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite the questionable validity of online-based physician review websites (PRWs), negative reviews can adversely affect a provider's practice. Several investigations have explored the effect of extremely negative "one-star" reviews across subspecialties such as adult reconstruction, sports medicine, and orthopaedic traumatology; however, to date, no study has explored one-star reviews in foot and ankle surgery. The goal of this study was to characterize factors that contribute to extremely negative, one-star reviews for foot and ankle surgeons on Vitals.com. METHODS A retrospective analysis of negative one-star reviews with corresponding patient complaints for foot and ankle surgeons (both orthopaedic surgeons as well as podiatrists) in the United States. Physicians included were selected within a 10-mile radius of the top ten largest cities in the United States. Data was stratified by patient type (e.g., those receiving surgery and those not undergoing surgical intervention) and binned according to type of patient complaint, as previously described. RESULTS Of the 2645 foot and ankle surgeons identified in our initial query, 13.8% of surgeons contained one-star reviews eligible for analysis. Patient complaints related to bedside manner and patient experience are the causative factors accounting for 41.5% of the one-star reviews of foot and ankle surgeons for nonsurgical-related complaints. Surgical complications and other outcomes-related factors comprised roughly 50% of the complaints related to surgical patients. CONCLUSION In conclusion, complaints related to bedside manner and patient experience are the causative factors accounting for 41.5% of the one-star reviews of foot and ankle surgeons for nonsurgical-related complaints. Surgical complications and other outcomes-related factors comprised roughly half of the complaints related to surgery. This data serves to inform practicing foot and ankle surgeons as to the influences behind patients leaving extremely negative reviews on PRWs. LEVEL OF CLINICAL EVIDENCE IV.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Anthony N Baumann
- College of Medicine, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, OH, USA
| | - Deven P Curtis
- College of Medicine, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, OH, USA
| | - Hudson Rogers
- College of Medicine, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, OH, USA
| | - Caleb Hogge
- School of Osteopathic Medicine, Lake Erie College of Medicine, Erie, PA, USA
| | - Savannah F Ryan
- Department of Orthopaedics, University of Michigan | Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
| | - Kempland C Walley
- Department of Orthopaedics, University of Michigan | Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Samuel B Adams
- Department of Orthopaedics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|