Association of note quality and quality of care: A cross-sectional study

Samuel Edwards, Pamela M. Neri, Lynn A. Volk, Gordon D. Schiff, David W. Bates

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background While physician notes are known to vary in organisation, content and quality, the relationship between note quality and clinical quality is uncertain. Methods We performed a cross-sectional study of outpatient visit physician notes by adult patients with coronary artery disease or diabetes mellitus seen in 2010. We assessed physician note quality using the 9-item Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9) and compared this to disease-specific clinical quality scores constructed from data extracted from the electronic health record (EHR). We also assessed the presence of typical note subsections, and indicators of quality care in physician notes. Results We evaluated 239 notes, written by 111 physicians; 110 notes were written by primary care physicians, 52 by cardiologists and 77 by endocrinologists. Reason for visit was absent in 10%of notes, medication list was not present in the note in 19.7%and timing for follow-upwas absent in 18.0% of notes. Significant copy/pasted material was present in 10.5% of notes. Laboratory quality indicators were more often found in other EHR sections than in the physician note. Clinical quality scores for diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) showed no significant association with subjective note quality (diabetes: r -0.119, p=0.065, CAD: r -0.124, p=0.06). Conclusions Notes varied in documentation method and length, and important note subsections were frequently missing. Key clinical data to support quality patient care were often not present in physician notes, but were often found elsewhere in the EHR. Subjective assessment of note quality did not correlate with clinical quality scores, suggesting that writing high-quality notes and meeting quality measures are not mutually reinforcing activities.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)406-413
Number of pages8
JournalBMJ Quality and Safety
Volume23
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Quality of Health Care
Cross-Sectional Studies
Physicians
Electronic Health Records
Coronary Artery Disease
Documentation
Primary Care Physicians
Patient Care
Diabetes Mellitus
Outpatients

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy

Cite this

Association of note quality and quality of care : A cross-sectional study. / Edwards, Samuel; Neri, Pamela M.; Volk, Lynn A.; Schiff, Gordon D.; Bates, David W.

In: BMJ Quality and Safety, Vol. 23, No. 5, 01.01.2014, p. 406-413.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Edwards, Samuel ; Neri, Pamela M. ; Volk, Lynn A. ; Schiff, Gordon D. ; Bates, David W. / Association of note quality and quality of care : A cross-sectional study. In: BMJ Quality and Safety. 2014 ; Vol. 23, No. 5. pp. 406-413.
@article{3e6015484b67436485014683e56b08b9,
title = "Association of note quality and quality of care: A cross-sectional study",
abstract = "Background While physician notes are known to vary in organisation, content and quality, the relationship between note quality and clinical quality is uncertain. Methods We performed a cross-sectional study of outpatient visit physician notes by adult patients with coronary artery disease or diabetes mellitus seen in 2010. We assessed physician note quality using the 9-item Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9) and compared this to disease-specific clinical quality scores constructed from data extracted from the electronic health record (EHR). We also assessed the presence of typical note subsections, and indicators of quality care in physician notes. Results We evaluated 239 notes, written by 111 physicians; 110 notes were written by primary care physicians, 52 by cardiologists and 77 by endocrinologists. Reason for visit was absent in 10{\%}of notes, medication list was not present in the note in 19.7{\%}and timing for follow-upwas absent in 18.0{\%} of notes. Significant copy/pasted material was present in 10.5{\%} of notes. Laboratory quality indicators were more often found in other EHR sections than in the physician note. Clinical quality scores for diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) showed no significant association with subjective note quality (diabetes: r -0.119, p=0.065, CAD: r -0.124, p=0.06). Conclusions Notes varied in documentation method and length, and important note subsections were frequently missing. Key clinical data to support quality patient care were often not present in physician notes, but were often found elsewhere in the EHR. Subjective assessment of note quality did not correlate with clinical quality scores, suggesting that writing high-quality notes and meeting quality measures are not mutually reinforcing activities.",
author = "Samuel Edwards and Neri, {Pamela M.} and Volk, {Lynn A.} and Schiff, {Gordon D.} and Bates, {David W.}",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002194",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "23",
pages = "406--413",
journal = "BMJ Quality and Safety",
issn = "2044-5415",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Association of note quality and quality of care

T2 - A cross-sectional study

AU - Edwards, Samuel

AU - Neri, Pamela M.

AU - Volk, Lynn A.

AU - Schiff, Gordon D.

AU - Bates, David W.

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - Background While physician notes are known to vary in organisation, content and quality, the relationship between note quality and clinical quality is uncertain. Methods We performed a cross-sectional study of outpatient visit physician notes by adult patients with coronary artery disease or diabetes mellitus seen in 2010. We assessed physician note quality using the 9-item Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9) and compared this to disease-specific clinical quality scores constructed from data extracted from the electronic health record (EHR). We also assessed the presence of typical note subsections, and indicators of quality care in physician notes. Results We evaluated 239 notes, written by 111 physicians; 110 notes were written by primary care physicians, 52 by cardiologists and 77 by endocrinologists. Reason for visit was absent in 10%of notes, medication list was not present in the note in 19.7%and timing for follow-upwas absent in 18.0% of notes. Significant copy/pasted material was present in 10.5% of notes. Laboratory quality indicators were more often found in other EHR sections than in the physician note. Clinical quality scores for diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) showed no significant association with subjective note quality (diabetes: r -0.119, p=0.065, CAD: r -0.124, p=0.06). Conclusions Notes varied in documentation method and length, and important note subsections were frequently missing. Key clinical data to support quality patient care were often not present in physician notes, but were often found elsewhere in the EHR. Subjective assessment of note quality did not correlate with clinical quality scores, suggesting that writing high-quality notes and meeting quality measures are not mutually reinforcing activities.

AB - Background While physician notes are known to vary in organisation, content and quality, the relationship between note quality and clinical quality is uncertain. Methods We performed a cross-sectional study of outpatient visit physician notes by adult patients with coronary artery disease or diabetes mellitus seen in 2010. We assessed physician note quality using the 9-item Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9) and compared this to disease-specific clinical quality scores constructed from data extracted from the electronic health record (EHR). We also assessed the presence of typical note subsections, and indicators of quality care in physician notes. Results We evaluated 239 notes, written by 111 physicians; 110 notes were written by primary care physicians, 52 by cardiologists and 77 by endocrinologists. Reason for visit was absent in 10%of notes, medication list was not present in the note in 19.7%and timing for follow-upwas absent in 18.0% of notes. Significant copy/pasted material was present in 10.5% of notes. Laboratory quality indicators were more often found in other EHR sections than in the physician note. Clinical quality scores for diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) showed no significant association with subjective note quality (diabetes: r -0.119, p=0.065, CAD: r -0.124, p=0.06). Conclusions Notes varied in documentation method and length, and important note subsections were frequently missing. Key clinical data to support quality patient care were often not present in physician notes, but were often found elsewhere in the EHR. Subjective assessment of note quality did not correlate with clinical quality scores, suggesting that writing high-quality notes and meeting quality measures are not mutually reinforcing activities.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84898611581&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84898611581&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002194

DO - 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002194

M3 - Article

C2 - 24287259

AN - SCOPUS:84898611581

VL - 23

SP - 406

EP - 413

JO - BMJ Quality and Safety

JF - BMJ Quality and Safety

SN - 2044-5415

IS - 5

ER -