Interaction Time with Electronic Health Records: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Background The amount of time that health care clinicians (physicians and nurses) spend interacting with the electronic health record is not well understood.

Objective This study aimed to evaluate the time that health care providers spend interacting with electronic health records (EHR).

Methods Data are retrieved from Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, (Ovid) Embase, CINAHL, and SCOPUS.

Study Eligibility Criteria Peer-reviewed studies that describe the use of EHR and include measurement of time either in hours, minutes, or in the percentage of a clinician's workday. Papers were written in English and published between 1990 and 2021.

Participants All physicians and nurses involved in inpatient and outpatient settings.

Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods A narrative synthesis of the results, providing summaries of interaction time with EHR. The studies were rated according to Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs.

Results Out of 5,133 de-duplicated references identified through database searching, 18 met inclusion criteria. Most were time-motion studies (50%) that followed by logged-based analysis (44%). Most were conducted in the United States (94%) and examined a clinician workflow in the inpatient settings (83%). The average time was nearly 37% of time of their workday by physicians in both inpatient and outpatient settings and 22% of the workday by nurses in inpatient settings. The studies showed methodological heterogeneity.

Conclusion This systematic review evaluates the time that health care providers spend interacting with EHR. Interaction time with EHR varies depending on clinicians' roles and clinical settings, computer systems, and users' experience. The average time spent by physicians on EHR exceeded one-third of their workday. The finding is a possible indicator that the EHR has room for usability, functionality improvement, and workflow optimization.

Keywords

electronic health records and systems - inpatient (inpatient CPOE) - workflow - time and motion - task performance and analysis

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

The study was performed in compliance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 04. Mai 2021

Angenommen: 03. Juli 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
25. August 2021

• References

• 1 Kruse CS, Kristof C, Jones B, Mitchell E, Martinez A. Barriers to electronic health record adoption: a systematic literature review. J Med Syst 2016; 40 (12) 252
• 2 Wilson K, Khansa L. Migrating to electronic health record systems: a comparative study between the United States and the United Kingdom. Health Policy 2018; 122 (11) 1232-1239
• 3 Bush RA, Kuelbs C, Ryu J, Jiang W, Chiang G. Structured data entry in the electronic medical record: perspectives of pediatric specialty physicians and surgeons. J Med Syst 2017; 41 (05) 75
• 4 Menachemi N, Collum TH. Benefits and drawbacks of electronic health record systems. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 2011; 4: 47-55
• 5 Shanafelt TD, Dyrbye LN, Sinsky C. et al. Relationship between clerical burden and characteristics of the electronic environment with physician burnout and professional satisfaction. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Accessed 2016 at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27313121/
• 6 Ehrenfeld JM, Wanderer JP. Technology as friend or foe? Do electronic health records increase burnout?. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2018; 31 (03) 357-360
• 7 Babbott S, Manwell LB, Brown R. et al. Electronic medical records and physician stress in primary care: results from the MEMO Study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014; 21 (e1): e100-e106
• 8 Kroth PJ, Morioka-Douglas N, Veres S. et al. The electronic elephant in the room: physicians and the electronic health record. JAMIA Open 2018; 1 (01) 49-56
• 9 Khairat S, Xi L, Liu S, Shrestha S, Austin C. Understanding the Association Between Electronic Health Record Satisfaction and the Well-Being of Nurses: survey study. JMIR Nursing. 2020; 3 (01) e13996
• 10 Harris DA, Haskell J, Cooper E, Crouse N, Gardner R. Estimating the association between burnout and electronic health record-related stress among advanced practice registered nurses. Appl Nurs Res 2018; 43: 36-41
• 11 Gawande A. Why doctors hate their computers. Published 2018. Accessed December 7, 2018 at: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/11/12/why-doctors-hate-their-computers
• 12 Technology OWoTOotNCfHI. Strategy on Reducing Burden Relating to the Use of Health IT and EHRs. Published 2018. Accessed December, 2018 at: https://www.healthit.gov/topic/usability-and-provider-burden/strategy-reducing-burden-relating-use-health-it-and-ehrs 2018
• 13 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62 (10) 1006-1012
• 14 Evans RS. Electronic health records: then, now, and in the future. Yearb Med Inform 2016; (Suppl. 01) S48-S61
• 15 Sirriyeh R, Lawton R, Gardner P, Armitage G. Reviewing studies with diverse designs: the development and evaluation of a new tool. J Eval Clin Pract 2012; 18 (04) 746-752
• 16 Lambe KA, Lydon S, Madden C. et al. Hand hygiene compliance in the ICU: a systematic review. Crit Care Med 2019; 47 (09) 1251-1257
• 17 Victores AJ, Coggins K, Takashima M. Electronic health records and resident workflow: a time-motion study of otolaryngology residents. Laryngoscope 2015; 125 (03) 594-598
• 18 Block L, Habicht R, Wu AW. et al. In the wake of the 2003 and 2011 duty hours regulations, how do internal medicine interns spend their time?. J Gen Intern Med 2013; 28 (08) 1042-1047
• 19 Asaro PV, Boxerman SB. Effects of computerized provider order entry and nursing documentation on workflow. Acad Emerg Med 2008; 15 (10) 908-915
• 20 Wong DH, Gallegos Y, Weinger MB, Clack S, Slagle J, Anderson CT. Changes in intensive care unit nurse task activity after installation of a third-generation intensive care unit information system. Crit Care Med 2003; 31 (10) 2488-2494
• 21 Qian S, Yu P, Hailey DM. The impact of electronic medication administration records in a residential aged care home. Int J Med Inform 2015; 84 (11) 966-973
• 22 Munyisia EN, Yu P, Hailey D. Does the introduction of an electronic nursing documentation system in a nursing home reduce time on documentation for the nursing staff?. Int J Med Inform 2011; 80 (11) 782-792
• 23 Korst LM, Eusebio-Angeja AC, Chamorro T, Aydin CE, Gregory KD. Nursing documentation time during implementation of an electronic medical record. J Nurs Adm 2003; 33 (01) 24-30
• 24 Hakes B, Whittington J. Assessing the impact of an electronic medical record on nurse documentation time. Comput Inform Nurs 2008; 26 (04) 234-241
• 25 Banner L, Olney CM. Automated clinical documentation: does it allow nurses more time for patient care?. Comput Inform Nurs 2009; 27 (02) 75-81
• 26 Carayon P, Smith P, Hundt AS, Kuruchittham V, Li Q. Implementation of an electronic health records system in a small clinic: the viewpoint of clinic staff. Behav Inf Technol 2009; 28 (01) 5-20
• 27 Hripcsak G, Vawdrey DK, Fred MR, Bostwick SB. Use of electronic clinical documentation: time spent and team interactions. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011; 18 (02) 112-117
• 28 Joukes E, Abu-Hanna A, Cornet R, de Keizer NF. Time spent on dedicated patient care and documentation tasks before and after the introduction of a structured and standardized electronic health record. Appl Clin Inform 2018; 9 (01) 46-53
• 29 Edsall DW, Deshane P, Giles C, Dick D, Sloan B, Farrow J. Computerized patient anesthesia records: less time and better quality than manually produced anesthesia records. J Clin Anesth 1993; 5 (04) 275-283
• 30 Wormer BA, Colavita PD, Yokeley WT. et al. Impact of implementing an electronic health record on surgical resident work flow, duty hours, and operative experience. Am Surg 2015; 81 (02) 172-177
• 31 Wang Y, Tian Y, Tian LL, Qian YM, Li JS. An electronic medical record system with treatment recommendations based on patient similarity. J Med Syst 2015; 39 (05) 55
• 32 Keshavjee K, Troyan S, Holbrook AM, VanderMolen D. COMPLETE Investigators. Measuring the success of electronic medical record implementation using electronic and survey data. Proc AMIA Symp 2001; 309-313
• 33 Kannampallil TG, Denton CA, Shapiro JS, Patel VL. Efficiency of emergency physicians: insights from an observational study using EHR log files. Appl Clin Inform 2018; 9 (01) 99-104
• 34 Chen L, Guo U, Illipparambil LC. et al. Racing against the clock: internal medicine residents' time spent on electronic health records. J Grad Med Educ 2016; 8 (01) 39-44
• 35 Street Jr RL, Liu L, Farber NJ. et al. Provider interaction with the electronic health record: the effects on patient-centered communication in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns 2014; 96 (03) 315-319
• 36 Street Jr RL, Liu L, Farber NJ. et al. Keystrokes, mouse clicks, and gazing at the computer: how physician interaction with the EHR affects patient participation. J Gen Intern Med 2018; 33 (04) 423-428
• 37 Shabbir SA, Ahmed LA, Sudhir RR, Scholl J, Li YC, Liou DM. Comparison of documentation time between an electronic and a paper-based record system by optometrists at an eye hospital in south India: a time-motion study. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2010; 100 (03) 283-288
• 38 Read-Brown S, Sanders DS, Brown AS. et al. Time-motion analysis of clinical nursing documentation during implementation of an electronic operating room management system for ophthalmic surgery. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2013; 2013: 1195-1204
• 39 Read-Brown S, Hribar MR, Reznick LG. et al. Time requirements for electronic health record use in an academic ophthalmology center. JAMA Ophthalmol 2017; 135 (11) 1250-1257
• 40 Zoghbi V, Caskey RC, Dumon KR. et al. “How to” videos improve residents performance of essential perioperative electronic medical records and clinical tasks. J Surg Educ 2018; 75 (02) 489-496
• 41 Neri PM, Redden L, Poole S. et al. Emergency medicine resident physicians' perceptions of electronic documentation and workflow: a mixed methods study. Appl Clin Inform 2015; 6 (01) 27-41
• 42 Hanauer DA, Zheng K, Commiskey EL, Duck MG, Choi SW, Blayney DW. Computerized prescriber order entry implementation in a physician assistant-managed hematology and oncology inpatient service: effects on workflow and task switching. J Oncol Pract 2013; 9 (04) e103-e114
• 43 Carayon P, Wetterneck TB, Alyousef B. et al. Impact of electronic health record technology on the work and workflow of physicians in the intensive care unit. Int J Med Inform 2015; 84 (08) 578-594
• 44 Cornell P, Riordan M, Herrin-Griffith D. Transforming nursing workflow, part 2: the impact of technology on nurse activities. J Nurs Adm 2010; 40 (10) 432-439
• 45 Heaton HA, Wang R, Farrell KJ. et al. Time motion analysis: impact of scribes on provider time management. J Emerg Med 2018; 55 (01) 135-140
• 46 Hill Jr RG, Sears LM, Melanson SW. 4000 clicks: a productivity analysis of electronic medical records in a community hospital ED. Am J Emerg Med 2013; 31 (11) 1591-1594
• 47 Mamykina L, Vawdrey DK, Hripcsak G. How do residents spend their shift time? A time and motion study with a particular focus on the use of computers. Acad Med 2016; 91 (06) 827-832
• 48 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
• 49 Tipping MD, Forth VE, O'Leary KJ. et al. Where did the day go? A time-motion study of hospitalists. J Hosp Med 2010; 5 (06) 323-328
• 50 Schachner MB, Recondo FJ, Sommer JA. et al. Preimplementation study of a nursing e-chart: how nurses use their time. Stud Health Technol Inform 2015; 216: 255-258
• 51 Arndt BG, Beasley JW, Watkinson MD. et al. Tethered to the EHR: primary care physician workload assessment using EHR event log data and time-motion observations. Ann Fam Med 2017; 15 (05) 419-426
• 52 Cox ML, Farjat AE, Risoli TJ. et al. Documenting or operating: where is time spent in general surgery residency?. J Surg Educ 2018; 75 (06) e97-e106
• 53 Cox ML, Risoli Jr T, Peskoe SB, Turner DA, Migaly J. Quantified electronic health record (EHR) use by academic surgeons. Surgery 2021; 169 (06) 1386-1392
• 54 Giliberto JP, Ator G, Carroll TL, Chan T, Vahabzadeh-Hagh A. National trends in daily ambulatory electronic health record use by otolaryngologists. Laryngoscope 2021; 131 (05) 975-981
• 55 Krawiec C, Haidet P. The impact of patient census on PICU attending electronic health record utilization. Critical Care Medicine Conference: 48th Critical Care Congress of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, SCCM; 2019;47(1 Supplement 1). Accessed 2019 at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32215894/
• 56 Maloney SR, Peterson S, Kao AM, Sherrill WC, Green JM, Sachdev G. Surgery resident time consumed by the electronic health record. J Surg Educ 2020; 77 (05) 1056-1062
• 57 Verma G, Ivanov A, Benn F. et al. Analyses of electronic health records utilization in a large community hospital. PLoS One 2020; 15 (07) e0233004 [Electronic Resource]
• 58 Wang JK, Ouyang D, Hom J, Chi J, Chen JH. Characterizing electronic health record usage patterns of inpatient medicine residents using event log data. PLoS One 2019; 14 (02) e0205379
• 59 Kossman SP, Scheidenhelm SL. Nurses' perceptions of the impact of electronic health records on work and patient outcomes. Comput Inform Nurs 2008; 26 (02) 69-77
• 60 Chaiyachati KH, Shea JA, Asch DA. et al. Assessment of inpatient time allocation among first-year internal medicine residents using time-motion observations. JAMA Intern Med 2019; 179 (06) 760-767
• 61 Walker RM, Burmeister E, Jeffrey C. et al. The impact of an integrated electronic health record on nurse time at the bedside: a pre-post continuous time and motion study. Collegian 2020; 27 (01) 63-74
• 62 Watson MD, Elhage SA, Scully C. et al. Electronic health record usage among nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and junior residents. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract 2020; 33 (03) 200-204
• 63 Haidar YM, Moshtaghi O, Mahboubi H. et al. Association between electronic medical record implementation and otolaryngologist productivity in the ambulatory setting. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 143 (01) 20-24
• 64 Wenger N, Méan M, Castioni J, Marques-Vidal P, Waeber G, Garnier A. Allocation of internal medicine resident time in a Swiss hospital: a time and motion study of day and evening shifts. Ann Intern Med 2017; 166 (08) 579-586
• 65 Eschenroeder Jr HC, Manzione LC, Adler-Milstein J. et al. Associations of physician burnout with organizational electronic health record support and after-hours charting. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021; 28 (05) 960-966
• 66 Amusan AA, Tongen S, Speedie SM, Mellin A. A time-motion study to evaluate the impact of EMR and CPOE implementation on physician efficiency. J Healthc Inf Manag 2008; 22 (04) 31-37
• 67 Kochendorfer KM, Morris LE, Kruse RL, Ge BG, Mehr DR. Attending and resident physician perceptions of an EMR-generated rounding report for adult inpatient services. Fam Med 2010; 42 (05) 343-349
• 68 Patel VL, Denton CA, Soni HC, Kannampallil TG, Traub SJ, Shapiro JS. Physician workflow in two distinctive emergency departments: an observational study. Appl Clin Inform 2021; 12 (01) 141-152
• 69 Tai-Seale M, Olson CW, Li J. et al. Electronic health record logs indicate that physicians split time evenly between seeing patients and desktop medicine. Health Aff (Millwood) 2017; 36 (04) 655-662
• 70 Kamil RJ, Giddings N, Hoffer M. et al. Electronic health record use among American Neurotology Society members. Otol Neurotol 2018; 39 (09) e876-e882
• 71 Kumah-Crystal YA, Pirtle CJ, Whyte HM, Goode ES, Anders SH, Lehmann CU. Electronic health record interactions through voice: a review. Appl Clin Inform 2018; 9 (03) 541-552
• 72 McCormick BJ, Deal A, Borawski KM. et al. Implementation of medical scribes in an academic urology practice: an analysis of productivity, revenue, and satisfaction. World J Urol 2018; 36 (10) 1691-1697
• 73 Tran BD, Chen Y, Liu S, Zheng K. How does medical scribes' work inform development of speech-based clinical documentation technologies? A systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2020; 27 (05) 808-817
• 74 Belden JL, Koopman RJ, Patil SJ, Lowrance NJ, Petroski GF, Smith JB. Dynamic electronic health record note prototype: seeing more by showing less. J Am Board Fam Med 2017; 30 (06) 691-700
• 75 Dowding D, Merrill JA, Barrón Y, Onorato N, Jonas K, Russell D. Usability evaluation of a dashboard for home care nurses. Comput Inform Nurs 2019; 37 (01) 11-19
• 76 Poissant L, Pereira J, Tamblyn R, Kawasumi Y. The impact of electronic health records on time efficiency of physicians and nurses: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005; 12 (05) 505-516
• 77 Baumann LA, Baker J, Elshaug AG. The impact of electronic health record systems on clinical documentation times: a systematic review. Health Policy 2018; 122 (08) 827-836
• 78 Moore EC, Tolley CL, Bates DW, Slight SP. A systematic review of the impact of health information technology on nurses' time. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2020; 27 (05) 798-807
• 79 Lopetegui M, Yen P-Y, Lai A, Jeffries J, Embi P, Payne P. Time motion studies in healthcare: what are we talking about?. J Biomed Inform 2014; 49: 292-299