A Qualitative Analysis Evaluating The Purposes And Practices Of Clinical Documentation

Summary

Objectives: An important challenge for biomedical informatics researchers is determining the best approach for healthcare providers to use when generating clinical notes in settings where electronic health record (EHR) systems are used. The goal of this qualitative study was to explore healthcare providers’ and administrators’ perceptions about the purpose of clinical documentation and their own documentation practices.

Methods: We conducted seven focus groups with a total of 46 subjects composed of healthcare providers and administrators to collect knowledge, perceptions and beliefs about documentation from those who generate and review notes, respectively. Data were analyzed using inductive analysis to probe and classify impressions collected from focus group subjects.

Results: We observed that both healthcare providers and administrators believe that documentation serves five primary domains: clinical, administrative, legal, research, education. These purposes are tied closely to the nature of the clinical note as a document shared by multiple stake-holders, which can be a source of tension for all parties who must use the note. Most providers reported using a combination of methods to complete their notes in a timely fashion without compromising patient care. While all administrators reported relying on computer-based documentation tools to review notes, they expressed a desire for a more efficient method of extracting relevant data.

Conclusions: Although clinical documentation has utility, and is valued highly by its users, the development and successful adoption of a clinical documentation tool largely depends on its ability to be smoothly integrated into the provider’s busy workflow, while allowing the provider to generate a note that communicates effectively and efficiently with multiple stakeholders.

Citation: Ho Y-X, Gadd CS, Kohorst KL, Rosenbloom ST. A qualitative analysis evaluating the purposes and practices of clinical documentation. Appl Clin Inf 2014; 5: 153–168 http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2013-10-RA-0081

Keywords

Clinical documentation and communications - electronic health records and systems - personal health records - workflows and human interactions - qualitative methods - support - U.S. Gov’t - P.H.S.

 

Conflict of interest statement

The authors wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.

• References

• 1 Rosenbloom ST, Stead WW, Denny JC, Giuse D, Lorenzi NM, Brown SH, Johnson KB. Generating clinical notes for electronic health record systems. Appl Clin Informatics 2010; 1 (03) 232-243.
• 2 Blumenthal D, Glaser JP. Information technology comes to medicine. N Engl J Med 2007; 356 (24) 2527-2534.
• 3 Gaffey AD. Communication and documentation considerations for electronic health records. J Healthc Risk Manag J Am Soc Healthc Risk Manag 2009; 29 (02) 16-20.
• 4 Rosenbloom ST, Miller RA, Johnson KB, Elkin PL, Brown SH. Interface Terminologies: facilitating direct entry of clinical data into electronic health record systems. J Am Med Inf Assoc 2006; 13: 277-288.
• 5 Johnson SB, Bakken S, Dine D, Hyun S, Mendonca E, Morrison F, Bright T, Van Vleck T, Wrenn J, Stetson P.. An electronic health record based on structured narrative. J Am Med Inf Assoc 2008; 15 (Suppl. 01) 54-64.
• 6 Rosenbloom ST, Denny JC, Xu H, Lorenzi N, Stead WW, Johnson KB. Data from clinical notes: a perspective on the tension between structure and flexible documentation. J Am Med Inf Assoc 2011; 18 (02) 181-186.
• 7 Johnson KB, Serwint JR, Fagan LA, Thompson RE, Wilson MEH, Roter D. Computer-based documentation: effects on parent-provider communication during pediatric health maintenance encounters. Pediatrics 2008; 122 (03) 590-598.
• 8 Schiff GD, Bates DW. Can electronic clinical documentation help prevent diagnostic errors?. N Engl J Med 2010; 362 (12) 1066-1069.
• 9 Quint DJ. Voice Recognition: Ready for Prime Time?. J Am Coll Radiol 2007; 4 (10) 667-669.
• 10 Embi PJ, Weir C, Efthimiadis EN, Thielke SM, Hedeen AN, Hammond KW. Computerized provider documentation: findings and implications of a multisite study of clinicians and administrators. J Am Med Informatics Assoc JAMIA 2013; 20 (04) 718-726.
• 11 Hripcsak G, Vawdrey DK, Fred MR, Bostwick SB. Use of electronic clinical documentation: time spent and team interactions. J Am Med Inf Assoc 2011; 18 (02) 112-117.
• 12 Pizziferri L, Kittler AF, Volk LA, Honour MM, Gupta S, Wang S, Wang T, Lippincott M, Li Q, Bates DW. Primary care physician time utilization before and after implementation of an electronic health record: a time-motion study. J Biomed Inform 2005; 38 (03) 176-188.
• 13 Apkon M, Singhaviranon P. Impact of an electronic information system on physician workflow and data collection in the intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med 2001; 27 (01) 122-130.
• 14 Rogers ML, Sockolow PS, Bowles KH, Hand KE, George J. Use of a human factors approach to uncover informatics needs of nurses in documentation of care. Int J Med Inf [cited 2013 Oct 2]; Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386505613001780
• 15 Rosenbloom ST, Grande J, Geissbuhler A, Miller RA. Experience in implementing inpatient clinical note capture via a provider order entry system. J Am Med Inf Assoc 2004; 11 (04) 310-315.
• 16 Glaser B, Strauss A. Grounded Theory: The Discovery of Grounded Theory. de Gruyter; 1967
• 17 Kidd PS, Parshall MB. Getting the focus and the group: enhancing analytical rigor in focus group research. Qual Health Res 2000; 10 (03) 293-308.
• 18 Friedman CP, Wyatt J. Evaluation methods in biomedical informatics. Springer; 2006
• 19 Richards L. Using NVIVO in Qualitative Research. SAGE;; 1999
• 20 Johnson KB, Ravich WJ, Cowan JA. Brainstorming about next-generation computer-based documentation: an AMIA clinical working group survey. Int J Med Inf 2004; 73 9–10 665-674.
• 21 Rosenbloom ST, Crow AN, Blackford JU, Johnson KB. Cognitive factors influencing perceptions of clinical documentation tools. J Biomed Inf 2007; 40 (02) 106-113.
• 22 Engle Jr. RL. The evolution, uses, and present problems of the patient’s medical record as exemplified by the records of the New York Hospital from 1793 to the present. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 1991 102. 182-189 ; discussion 189-192.
• 23 Davidson SJ, Zwemer FL, Nathanson LA, Sable KN, Khan ANGA. Where’s the beef? The promise and the reality of clinical documentation. Acad Emerg Med Off J Soc Acad Emerg Med 2004; 11 (11) 1127-1134.
• 24 Weed LL. Quality control and the medical record. Arch Intern Med 1971; 127 (01) 101-105.
• 25 DeGowin EL, DeGowin RL. Bedside diagnostic examination. New York: Macmillan; 1969
• 26 Solomon DH, Schaffer JL, Katz JN, Horsky J, Burdick E, Nadler E, Bates DW. Can history and physical examination be used as markers of quality? An analysis of the initial visit note in musculoskeletal care. Med Care 2000; 38 (04) 383-391.
• 27 Hershberg PI, Goldfinger SE, Lemon FR, Fessel WJ. Medical record as index of quality of care. N Engl J Med 1972; 286 (13) 725-726.
• 28 Fessel WJ, Van Brunt EE. Assessing quality of care from the medical record. N Engl J Med 1972; 286 (03) 134-138.
• 29 Murphy JG, Jacobson S. Assessing the quality of emergency care: the medical record versus patient outcome. Ann Emerg Med 1984; 13 (03) 158-165.
• 30 Holder AR. The importance of medical records. J Am Med Assoc 1974; 228 (01) 118-119.
• 31 Rector AL, Nowlan WA, Kay S. Foundations for an electronic medical record. Methods Inf Med 1991; 30 (03) 179-186.
• 32 Miller RH, Sim I. Physicians’ Use Of Electronic Medical Records: Barriers And Solutions. Health Aff (Millwood) 2004; 23 (02) 116-126.
• 33 Embi PJ, Yackel TR, Logan JR, Bowen JL, Cooney TG, Gorman PN. Impacts of computerized physician documentation in a teaching hospital: perceptions of faculty and resident physicians. J Am Med Inf Assoc 2004; 11 (04) 300-309.