Physician Perceptions and Beliefs about Generating and Providing a Clinical Summary of the Office Visit

Summary

Background: A core measure of the meaningful use of EHR incentive program is the generation and provision of the clinical summary of the office visit, or the after visit summary (AVS), to patients. However, little research has been conducted on physician perceptions and beliefs about the AVS.

Objective: Evaluate physician perceptions and beliefs about the AVS and the effect of the AVS on workload, patient outcomes, and the care the physician delivers.

Methods: A cross-sectional online survey of physicians at two academic medical centers (AMCs) in the northeast who are participating in the meaningful use EHR incentive program.

Results: Of the 1 795 physicians at both AMCs participating in the incentive program, 853 completed the survey for a response rate of 47.5%. Eighty percent of the respondents reported that the AVS was easy (very easy or quite easy or somewhat easy) to generate and provide to patients. Nonetheless, more than three-fourths of the respondents reported a negative effect of generating and providing the AVS on workload of office staff (78%) and workload of physicians (76%).

Primary care physicians had more positive beliefs about the effect of the AVS on patient outcomes than specialists (p<0.001) and also had more positive beliefs about the effect of the AVS on the care they delivered than specialists (p<0.001).

Conclusions: Achieving the core meaningful use measure of generating and providing the AVS was easy for physicians but it did not necessarily translate into positive beliefs about the effect of the AVS on patient outcomes or the care the physician delivered. Physicians also had negative beliefs about the effect of the AVS on workload. To promote positive beliefs among physicians around the AVS, organizations should obtain physician input into the design and implementation of the AVS and develop strategies to mitigate its negative impacts on workload.

Citation: Emani S, , Ting DY, Healey M, Lipsitz SR, Ramelson H, Suric V, Bates DW. Physician perceptions and beliefs about generating and providing a clinical summary of the office visit. Appl Clin Inform 2015; 6: 577–590

http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2015-04-RA-0043

Keywords

Electronic health records - meaningful use - after visit summary - physicians - beliefs - evaluation

• References

• 1 Blumenthal D, Tavenner M. The ”meaningful use“ regulation for electronic health records. N Engl J Med 2010; 363 (06) 501-504.
• 2 Buntin MB, Jain SH, Blumenthal D. Health information technology: laying the infrastructure for national health reform. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010; 29 (06) 1214-1219.
• 3 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.. Stage 2 Eligible Professional Meaning Use Core Measures Measure 8 of 17. 2012: 1-3.
• 4 Hummel J, Evans P. Providing clinical summaries to patients after each office visit: A clinical guide. 2012. Seattle, WA: Qualis Health.
• 5 Chung AE, Shea CM. After-Visit Clinical Summaries: What is Meaningful to Patients? Presented at American Medical Informatics Association 2013 Annual Symposium. 2013. Washington D.C.:
• 6 Pavlik V, Brown AE, Nash S, Gossey JT. Association of patient recall, satisfaction, and adherence to content of an electronic health record (EHR)-generated after visit summary: A randomized control trial. J Am Board Fam Med 2014; 27: 209-218.
• 7 Emani S, Ting DY, Healey M, Lipsitz SR, Karson AS, Einbinder JS, Leinen L, Suric V, Bates DW. Physician beliefs about the impact of meaningful use of the EHR. Appl Clin Inform 2014; 5: 789-801.
• 8 Zandieh SO, Abramson EL, Pfoh ER, Yoon-Flannery K, Edwards A, Kaushal R. Transitioning between ambulatory EHRs: a study of practitioners’ perspectives. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012; 19: 401-406.
• 9 Agarwal R, Prasad J. A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information Systems Research 1998; 9 (02) 204-215.
• 10 Emani S, Yamin CK, Peters E, Karson AS, Lipsitz SR, Wald JS, Williams DH, Bates DW. Patient perceptions of a personal health record: A test of the diffusion of innovation model. J Med Internet Res 2012; 14 (06) e150.
• 11 DesRoches CM, Audet A-M, Painter M, Donelan K. Meeting meaningful use criteria and managing patient populations. Ann Intern Med 2013; 158: 791-799.
• 12 Rogers E. Diffusion of innovations. 5th edn. New York: Simon and Schuster,; 2003
• 13 Bloomrosen M, Starren J, Lorenzi NM, Ash JS, Patel VL, Shortliffe EH. Anticipating and addressing the unintended consequences of health IT and policy: a report from the AMIA 2009 Health Policy meeting. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011; 18: 82-90.
• 14 Schade CP, Sullivan FM, Lusignan SD, Madeley J. e-Prescribing, efficiency, quality: Lessons learned from the computerization of UK family practice. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13: 470-475.
• 15 Tang P. Informing patients: A guide for providing patients health information. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1998; 5: 563-563.
• 16 Grabenbauer L, Fraser R, McClay J, Woelfl N, Thompson CB, Cambell J, Windle J. Adoption of EHR –a qualitative study of academic and private physicians and health administrators. Appl Clin Inform 2011; 2: 165-176.
• 17 Grabenbauer L, Skinner A, Windle J. Electronic health record adoption –maybe it’s not about the money: physician super-users, electronic health records and patient care. Appl Clin Inform 2011; 2: 460-471.
• 18 Holden RJ. Physicians’ beliefs about using EMR and CPOE: In pursuit of a contextualized understanding of health IT use behavior. Int J Med Inform 2010; 79 (02) 71-80.
• 19 Gold MR, McLaughlin CG, Devers KJ, Berenson RA, Bovbjerg RR. Obtaining providers’ ’buy-in’ and establishing effective means of information exchange will be critical to HITECH’s success. Health Aff (Mill-wood) 2012; 31 (03) 514-526.