Electronic Health Records in Ophthalmology: Source and Method of Documentation

This study analyzed and quantified the sources of electronic health record (EHR) text documentation in ophthalmology progress notes. EHR documentation review and analysis. Setting: a single academic ophthalmology department. Study population: a cohort study conducted between November 1, 2016, and De...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:American journal of ophthalmology Vol. 211; pp. 191 - 199
Main Authors: Henriksen, Bradley S., Goldstein, Isaac H., Rule, Adam, Huang, Abigail E., Dusek, Haley, Igelman, Austin, Chiang, Michael F., Hribar, Michelle R.
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.03.2020
Elsevier Limited
Subjects:
Academic Medical Centers
Authorship
Data Accuracy
Documentation
Documentation - standards
Efficiency
Electronic health records
Electronic Health Records - standards
Humans
Medical personnel
Medical Records - standards
Ophthalmology - standards
Oregon
Outpatients
Patients
Practice Patterns, Physicians
Retrospective Studies
Software
Oregon
ISSN:0002-9394, 1879-1891, 1879-1891
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This study analyzed and quantified the sources of electronic health record (EHR) text documentation in ophthalmology progress notes. EHR documentation review and analysis. Setting: a single academic ophthalmology department. Study population: a cohort study conducted between November 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018, using secondary EHR data and a follow-up manual review of a random samples. The cohort study included 123,274 progress notes documented by 42 attending providers. These notes were for patients with the 5 most common primary International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, version 10, parent codes for each provider. For the manual review, 120 notes from 8 providers were randomly sampled. Main outcome measurements were characters or number of words in each note categorized by attribution source, author type, and time of creation. Imported text entries made up the majority of text in new and return patients, 2,978 characters (77%) and 3,612 characters (91%). Support staff members authored substantial portions of notes; 3,024 characters (68%) of new patient notes, 3,953 characters (83%) of return patient notes. Finally, providers completed large amounts of documentation after clinical visits: 135 words (35%) of new patient notes, 102 words (27%) of return patient notes. EHR documentation consists largely of imported text, is often authored by support staff, and is often written after the end of a visit. These findings raise questions about documentation accuracy and utility and may have implications for quality of care and patient-provider relationships.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
Dr. Huang’s current affiliation is Verily Life Sciences, South San Francisco, California.
ISSN:0002-9394
1879-1891
1879-1891
DOI:10.1016/j.ajo.2019.11.030