Relationship between documentation method and quality of chronic disease visit notes

P. M. Neri, L. A. Volk, S. Samaha, S. E. Pollard, D. H. Williams, J. M. Fiskio, E. Burdick, Samuel Edwards, H. Ramelson, G. D. Schiff, D. W. Bates

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 (p0.001) 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 (p0.001). 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)480-490
Number of pages11
JournalApplied Clinical Informatics
Volume5
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Factor analysis
Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
Documentation
Chronic Disease
Primary Health Care
Vital Signs
Physicians
Life Style
Symptom Assessment
Quality of Health Care
Primary Care Physicians
Statistical Factor Analysis
Analysis of Variance

Keywords

  • Clinical documentation
  • Documentation quality
  • Ehr
  • Electronic documentation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Informatics
  • Computer Science Applications
  • Health Information Management

Cite this

Neri, P. M., Volk, L. A., Samaha, S., Pollard, S. E., Williams, D. H., Fiskio, J. M., ... Bates, D. W. (2014). Relationship between documentation method and quality of chronic disease visit notes. Applied Clinical Informatics, 5(2), 480-490. https://doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2014-01-RA-0007

Relationship between documentation method and quality of chronic disease visit notes. / Neri, P. M.; Volk, L. A.; Samaha, S.; Pollard, S. E.; Williams, D. H.; Fiskio, J. M.; Burdick, E.; Edwards, Samuel; Ramelson, H.; Schiff, G. D.; Bates, D. W.

In: Applied Clinical Informatics, Vol. 5, No. 2, 01.01.2014, p. 480-490.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Neri, PM, Volk, LA, Samaha, S, Pollard, SE, Williams, DH, Fiskio, JM, Burdick, E, Edwards, S, Ramelson, H, Schiff, GD & Bates, DW 2014, 'Relationship between documentation method and quality of chronic disease visit notes', Applied Clinical Informatics, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 480-490. https://doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2014-01-RA-0007
Neri, P. M. ; Volk, L. A. ; Samaha, S. ; Pollard, S. E. ; Williams, D. H. ; Fiskio, J. M. ; Burdick, E. ; Edwards, Samuel ; Ramelson, H. ; Schiff, G. D. ; Bates, D. W. / Relationship between documentation method and quality of chronic disease visit notes. In: Applied Clinical Informatics. 2014 ; Vol. 5, No. 2. pp. 480-490.
@article{cbfe526ef2ba413584f411e184c08134,
title = "Relationship between documentation method and quality of chronic disease visit notes",
abstract = "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 (p0.001) 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 (p0.001). 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.",
keywords = "Clinical documentation, Documentation quality, Ehr, Electronic documentation",
author = "Neri, {P. M.} and Volk, {L. A.} and S. Samaha and Pollard, {S. E.} and Williams, {D. H.} and Fiskio, {J. M.} and E. Burdick and Samuel Edwards and H. Ramelson and Schiff, {G. D.} and Bates, {D. W.}",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4338/ACI-2014-01-RA-0007",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "480--490",
journal = "Applied Clinical Informatics",
issn = "1869-0327",
publisher = "Schattauer GmbH",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Relationship between documentation method and quality of chronic disease visit notes

AU - Neri, P. M.

AU - Volk, L. A.

AU - Samaha, S.

AU - Pollard, S. E.

AU - Williams, D. H.

AU - Fiskio, J. M.

AU - Burdick, E.

AU - Edwards, Samuel

AU - Ramelson, H.

AU - Schiff, G. D.

AU - Bates, D. W.

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - 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 (p0.001) 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 (p0.001). 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.

AB - 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 (p0.001) 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 (p0.001). 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.

KW - Clinical documentation

KW - Documentation quality

KW - Ehr

KW - Electronic documentation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84901432562&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84901432562&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4338/ACI-2014-01-RA-0007

DO - 10.4338/ACI-2014-01-RA-0007

M3 - Article

C2 - 25024762

AN - SCOPUS:84901432562

VL - 5

SP - 480

EP - 490

JO - Applied Clinical Informatics

JF - Applied Clinical Informatics

SN - 1869-0327

IS - 2

ER -