Variation in Electronic Health Record Workflow Patterns: A Multisite study

Abstract

Objectives Electronic health records (EHRs) continue to have significant usability challenges in part due to differences in workflow. The objective of this study was to examine workflow pattern variations for one specific task: emergency physicians placing a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) order.

Methods A between-subjects usability study was conducted using two different major EHR vendor products across four different provider sites (n = 55). A clinical scenario concerning for spinal cord compression was read to participants who then completed an ordering task using a training environment representative of their native EHR. The primary outcome measures were accuracy, time on task, and number of clicks.

Results We identified four different workflows to complete the same order. One workflow required two steps (enabled at one site), one workflow required four steps (enabled at two sites), and two workflows required six steps to complete the task (available at all sites). Of the 12 physicians who employed the two-step workflow, 8 (67%) had the correct order and correct indication, the average time on task was 29.65 (standard deviation [SD] = 13.77), and the mean number of clicks was 13.5 (SD = 18.87). In contrast, for the 43 physicians who employed other workflows, 7 (21%) had the correct order and correct indication, with the average time on task of 73.1 (SD = 30.12) and mean clicks of 27.64 (SD = 13.25) (p < 0.01 for all three comparisons).

Discussion These different approaches were made possible by technical specifications leading to multiple workflow options available to physicians in the EHR environment. EHR design maximizing usability can reduce the work effort and improve the accuracy of physician ordering.

Keywords

electronic health records - EHR systems - emergency medicine - interactions - information technology - iusability

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board.

• References

• 1 Likourezos A, Chalfin DB, Murphy DG, Sommer B, Darcy K, Davidson SJ. Physician and nurse satisfaction with an Electronic Medical Record system. J Emerg Med 2004; 27 (04) 419-424
• 2 Friedberg MW, Chen PG, Van Busum KR. , et al. Factors Affecting Physician Professional Satisfaction and Their Implications for Patient Care, Health Systems, and Health Policy. Rand Health Q 2014; 3 (04) 1
• 3 McGinn CA, Grenier S, Duplantie J. , et al. Comparison of user groups' perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic health records: a systematic review. BMC Med 2011; 9 (01) 46
• 4 Ratwani RM, Fairbanks RJ, Hettinger AZ, Benda NC. Electronic health record usability: analysis of the user-centered design processes of eleven electronic health record vendors. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015; 22 (06) 1179-1182
• 5 Howe JL, Adams KT, Hettinger AZ, Ratwani RM. Electronic health record usability issues and potential contribution to patient harm. JAMA 2018; 319 (12) 1276-1278
• 6 Niazkhani Z, Pirnejad H, Berg M, Aarts J. The impact of computerized provider order entry systems on inpatient clinical workflow: a literature review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2009; 16 (04) 539-549
• 7 Lee J, Cain C, Young S, Chockley N, Burstin H. The adoption gap: health information technology in small physician practices. Understanding office workflow can help realize the promise of technology. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005; 24 (05) 1364-1366
• 8 American College of Physicians. Survey of clinicians: user satisfaction with electronic health records has decreased since 2010. Available at: https://www.acponline.org/acp-newsroom/survey-of-clinicians-user-satisfaction-with-electronic-health-records-has-decreased-since-2010 . Accessed September 2018
• 9 Middleton B, Bloomrosen M, Dente MA. , et al; American Medical Informatics Association. Enhancing patient safety and quality of care by improving the usability of electronic health record systems: recommendations from AMIA. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013; 20 (e1): e2-e8
• 10 Sinsky C, Colligan L, Li L. , et al. Allocation of physician time in ambulatory practice: a time and motion study in 4 specialties. Ann Intern Med 2016; 165 (11) 753-760
• 11 Harrison MI, Koppel R, Bar-Lev S. Unintended consequences of information technologies in health care--an interactive sociotechnical analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007; 14 (05) 542-549
• 12 Sittig DF, Singh H. A new sociotechnical model for studying health information technology in complex adaptive healthcare systems. Qual Saf Health Care 2010; 19 (Suppl. 03) i68-i74
• 13 Park SY, Lee SY, Chen Y. The effects of EMR deployment on doctors' work practices: a qualitative study in the emergency department of a teaching hospital. Int J Med Inform 2012; 81 (03) 204-217
• 14 Vishwanath A, Singh SR, Winkelstein P. The impact of electronic medical record systems on outpatient workflows: a longitudinal evaluation of its workflow effects. Int J Med Inform 2010; 79 (11) 778-791
• 15 Unertl KM, Weinger MB, Johnson KB, Lorenzi NM. Describing and modeling workflow and information flow in chronic disease care. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2009; 16 (06) 826-836
• 16 Ratwani RM, Savage E, Will A. , et al. A usability and safety analysis of electronic health records: a multi-center study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018; 25 (09) 1197-1201
• 17 R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2018
• 18 Blumenthal D. Stimulating the adoption of health information technology. N Engl J Med 2009; 360 (15) 1477-1479
• 19 Goldzweig CL, Towfigh A, Maglione M, Shekelle PG. Costs and benefits of health information technology: new trends from the literature. Health Aff (Millwood) 2009; 28 (02) w282-w293
• 20 Buntin MB, Burke MF, Hoaglin MC, Blumenthal D. The benefits of health information technology: a review of the recent literature shows predominantly positive results. Health Aff (Millwood) 2011; 30 (03) 464-471
• 21 National Research Council. Computational Technology for Effective Health Care: Immediate Steps and Strategic Directions. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009