Typing proficiency among physicians in internal medicine: a pilot study of speed and performance

Background: Electronic health records (EHR) are widely implemented and consume nearly half of physicians’ work time. Despite the importance of efficient data entry, physicians’ typing skills – potential contributors to documentation burden – remain poorly studied. Objective: To evaluate the typing skills of physicians and their associations with demographic characteristics and professional roles. Methods: This cross-sectional pilot study included a convenience sample of physicians (residents, chief residents, and attending physicians) from the internal medicine division of an academic hospital. Participants completed a one-minute typing test under supervised conditions. The primary outcome was raw typing speed, measured in words per minute (WPM). Secondary outcome was a performance score calculated by subtracting 50 points for each error from the total number of characters typed per minute. Results: Participation rate was 100% (82/82 physicians). Mean age 33.7 ± 7.3 years; 7.2 ± 7.1 years since graduation; 45.1% female. Mean typing speed was 53.4 WPM (range: 31–91 WPM), with 57.3% (47/82) of participants exceeding 50 WPM, a threshold commonly considered as professional. Bivariable analysis showed significant negative association with age (Spearman’s ρ = -0.281, p = 0.011), which was not sustained in the multivariable analysis. No significant association was observed with sex, country of diploma, or role. Upon multivariable analysis, performance score showed significant negative association with age (β = -17.724, p = 0.009) but positive association with years since graduation (β = 16.850, p = 0.021), suggesting a generation- and experience-related interaction. Conclusions: Nearly half of physicians exhibited professional-level typing skills, yet overall performance varied widely and was influenced by both generational factors and clinical experience. Given that documentation burden affects clinicians across all skill levels, both individual and systemic strategies—such as improved EHR design and alternative input methods—should be explored.

Publication History

Received: 18 November 2024

Accepted after revision: 20 May 2025

Accepted Manuscript online:
26 May 2025