Measuring Documentation Burden in Healthcare.

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of General Internal Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-29 DOI:10.1007/s11606-024-08956-8
M Hassan Murad, Brianna E Vaa Stelling, Colin P West, Bashar Hasan, Suvyaktha Simha, Samer Saadi, Mohammed Firwana, Kelly E Viola, Larry J Prokop, Tarek Nayfeh, Zhen Wang
{"title":"Measuring Documentation Burden in Healthcare.","authors":"M Hassan Murad, Brianna E Vaa Stelling, Colin P West, Bashar Hasan, Suvyaktha Simha, Samer Saadi, Mohammed Firwana, Kelly E Viola, Larry J Prokop, Tarek Nayfeh, Zhen Wang","doi":"10.1007/s11606-024-08956-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":15860,"journal":{"name":"Journal of General Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"2837-2848"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11534919/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of General Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-024-08956-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
衡量医疗保健中的文档负担。
背景:健康信息技术促进经济和临床健康法案》的颁布和电子健康记录(EHR)系统的广泛采用导致了文档负担的增加,文档负担经常被认为是影响医疗保健专业人员工作经验的关键因素,也是导致职业倦怠的原因之一。本系统性综述旨在确定和描述文档负担的衡量标准:我们与关键信息提供者进行了讨论,并对 2010 年至 2023 年间发表的文献进行了全面检索,包括 MEDLINE、Embase、Scopus 和灰色文献。我们对数据进行了叙述性和主题性综合:结果:我们发现了 135 篇有关文档负担测量的文章。我们将衡量标准分为 11 类:在 EHR 中花费的总体时间、与临床文档相关的活动、收件箱管理、临床审核花费的时间、订单花费的时间、工作外/下班后的工作、行政任务(账单和保险相关)、工作流程碎片化、效率衡量标准、EHR 活动率和可用性。大多数衡量指标最常见的数据来源是电子病历使用日志。通过时间运动分析等方式进行直接跟踪的情况相当少见。这些测量方法的开发和应用涉及不同的环境和人群,美国的医生和护士是最常见的医疗保健专业人员。这些测量方法的有效性证据有限且不完整。有关措施在不同环境下的可扩展性、可行性或公平性的数据也很有限。医生的观点得到了最有力的反映,并主要集中在压力增加和职业倦怠方面:讨论:目前有许多衡量文档负担的方法,并已在各种环境和背景下进行了测试。然而,大多数都是单维度的,没有捕捉到这一结构的各个领域,也缺乏可靠的有效性证据。本报告呼吁采取行动,强调迫切需要开发能代表不同临床环境并支持未来干预措施的测量方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Journal of General Internal Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
749
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of General Internal Medicine is the official journal of the Society of General Internal Medicine. It promotes improved patient care, research, and education in primary care, general internal medicine, and hospital medicine. Its articles focus on topics such as clinical medicine, epidemiology, prevention, health care delivery, curriculum development, and numerous other non-traditional themes, in addition to classic clinical research on problems in internal medicine.
期刊最新文献
Identifying Demographic Trends in the Use of Audio-Video and Audio-Only Telehealth by Arizona Medicaid Beneficiaries Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Private Equity Penetration in Behavioral Health in the United States, 2010-2022. Approach to Estimating Adherence to Heart Failure Medications Using Linked Electronic Health Record and Pharmacy Data. National Survey of Factors Associated with Physician Antibiotic Prescribing Preferences. Antipsychotics and Risk of Acute Respiratory Failure in U.S. Medicare Beneficiaries with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1