Relationship between documentation method and quality of chronic disease visit notes

Summary

Objective: To assses the relationship between methods of documenting visit notes and note quality for primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists, and to determine the factors that contribute to higher quality notes for two chronic diseases.

Methods: Retrospective chart review of visit notes at two academic medical centers. Two physicians rated the subjective quality of content areas of the note (vital signs, medications, lifestyle, labs, symptoms, assessment & plan), overall quality, and completed the 9 item Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9). We evaluated quality ratings in relation to the primary method of documentation (templates, free-form or dictation) for both PCPs and specialists. A one factor analysis of variance test was used to examine differences in mean quality scores among the methods.

Results: A total of 112 physicians, 71 primary care physicians (PCP) and 41 specialists, wrote 240 notes. For specialists, templated notes had the highest overall quality scores (p≤0.001) while for PCPs, there was no statistically significant difference in overall quality score. For PCPs, free form received higher quality ratings on vital signs (p = 0.01), labs (p = 0.002), and lifestyle (p = 0.002) than other methods; templated notes had a higher rating on medications (p≤0.001). For specialists, templated notes received higher ratings on vital signs, labs, lifestyle and medications (p = 0.001).

Discussion: There was no significant difference in subjective quality of visit notes written using free-form documentation, dictation or templates for PCPs. The subjective quality rating of templated notes was higher than that of dictated notes for specialists.

Conclusion: As there is wide variation in physician documentation methods, and no significant difference in note quality between methods, recommending one approach for all physicians may not deliver optimal results.

Citation: Neri PM, Volk LA, Samaha S, Pollard SE, Williams DH, Fiskio JM, Burdick E, Edwards ST, Ramelson H, Schiff GD, Bates DW. Relationship between documentation method and quality of chronic disease visit notes. Appl Clin Inf 2014; 5: 480–490 http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2014-01-RA-0007

Keywords

Clinical documentation - documentation quality - EHR - electronic documentation

 

Conflict of Interest

The authors report no conflict of interest.

• References

• 1 Ash JS, Bates DW. Factors and forces affecting EHR system adoption: report of a 2004 ACMI discussion. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005; 12 (Suppl. 01) 8-12.
• 2 Wilcox A, Bowes WA, Thornton SN, Narus SP. Physician use of outpatient electronic health records to improve care. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2008: 809-813.
• 3 Hillestad R, Bigelow J, Bower A, Girosi F, Meili R, Scoville R, Taylor R. Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005; 24 (Suppl. 05) 1103-1117.
• 4 DesRoches CM, Campbell EG, Rao SR, Donelan K, Ferris TG, Jha A, Kaushal R, Levy DE, Rosenbaum S, Shields AE, Blumenthal D. Electronic health records in ambulatory care--a national survey of physicians. N Engl J Med 2008; 359 (Suppl. 01) 50-60.
• 5 Ammenwerth E, Spotl HP. The time needed for clinical documentation versus direct patient care. A work-sampling analysis of physicians’ activities. Methods Inf Med 2009; 48 (Suppl. 01) 84-91.
• 6 Oxentenko AS, West CP, Popkave C, Weinberger SE, Kolars JC. Time spent on clinical documentation: is technology a help or a hindrance?. Arch Intern Med 2010; 170 (Suppl. 04) 377-380.
• 7 Weir CR, Nebeker JR. Critical issues in an electronic documentation system. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2007: 786-90.
• 8 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 Inform Assoc 2004; 11 (Suppl. 04) 300-309.
• 9 Gottschalk A, Flocke SA. Time spent in face-to-face patient care and work outside the examination room. Ann Fam Med 2005; 3 (Suppl. 06) 488-493.
• 10 Pollard SE, Neri PM, Wilcox AR, Volk LA, Williams DH, Schiff GD, Ramelson HZ, Bates DW. How physicians document outpatient visit notes in an electronic health record. Int J Med Inform 2013; 82 (Suppl. 01) 39-46.
• 11 Rosenbloom ST, Crow AN, Blackford JU, Johnson KB. Cognitive factors influencing perceptions of clinical documentation tools. J Biomed Inform 2007; 40 (Suppl. 02) 106-113.
• 12 Weir CR, Hurdle JF, Felgar MA, Hoffman JM, Roth B, Nebeker JR. Direct text entry in electronic progress notes. An evaluation of input errors. Methods Inf Med 2003; 42 (Suppl. 01) 61-67.
• 13 Linder JA, Schnipper JL, Middleton B. Method of electronic health record documentation and quality of primary care. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012; 19 (Suppl. 06) 1019-1024.
• 14 Rosenbloom ST, Stead WW, Denny JC, Giuse D, Lorenzi NM, Brown SH, Johnson KB. Generating Clinical Notes for Electronic Health Record Systems. Appl Clin Inform 2010; 1 (Suppl. 03) 232-243.
• 15 Stetson P, Bakken S, Wrenn JO, Siegler EL. Assessing electronic note quality using the physician documentation quality instrument (PDQI-9). Appl Clin Inf 2012; 3: 164-174
• 16 van Ginneken AM. The physician’s flexible narrative. Methods Inf Med. 35 Germany 1996; 98-100
• 17 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 Inform Assoc 2011; 18 (Suppl. 02) 181-186.
• 18 Schiff GD, Bates DW. Can electronic clinical documentation help prevent diagnostic errors?. N Engl J Med 2010; 362 (12) 1066-1069.