Exploring Provider Perceptions and Attitudes toward Copy–Paste and Copy–Forward in Clinical Documentation

Matthew Hudkins; Jeffrey A. Gold; Sky Corby; Joan Ash; Vishnu Mohan

doi:10.1055/a-2574-1348

Applied Clinical Informatics, Table of Contents

Appl Clin Inform 2025; 16(04): 736-746
DOI: 10.1055/a-2574-1348

Research Article

Exploring Provider Perceptions and Attitudes toward Copy–Paste and Copy–Forward in Clinical Documentation

Authors

Matthew Hudkins

¹Division of Pediatric Critical Care, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States
Jeffrey A. Gold

²Division of Medical Informatics, Clinical Epidemiology and Translational Data Science, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States

³Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States
Sky Corby

³Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States
Joan Ash

²Division of Medical Informatics, Clinical Epidemiology and Translational Data Science, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States
Vishnu Mohan

²Division of Medical Informatics, Clinical Epidemiology and Translational Data Science, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States

⁴Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States

Abstract

Background

Copy–paste (CP) and copy–forward (CF) are common electronic health record (EHR) documentation tools that purportedly improve provider efficiency, but they can also contribute to documentation burden while increasing note bloat and errors. Our understanding of provider perceptions of these tools remains limited.

Objectives

This study aimed to increase understanding of provider perceptions and self-reported usage patterns of CP and CF across different clinical environments and provider roles, including the impact of these tools on clinical documentation quality and efficiency.

Methods

A survey was developed and administered at a large academic medical center from December 2022 to March 2023. The survey was distributed to medical students, trainees, and faculty. Questions addressed documentation practices, perceived benefits and risks of CP/CF, and attitudes toward future use. Data were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Results

Among 913 respondents (22–28% response rate across levels of training), 82% reported using CP, and 52% used CF in clinical documentation. Usage varied significantly by environment, with the highest utilization in inpatient primary services (91% CP, 68% CF) and the lowest in emergency departments (70% CP, 14% CF). Eighty-six percent of providers believed that CP/CF improved efficiency. A majority felt that CP (59–70%) and CF (69–76%) worsened several types of documentation errors. Providers showed stronger acceptance of copying from their own notes (90% CP, 82% CF) compared with others' notes (61% CP, 47% CF).

Conclusion

Self-reported use of CP and CF is high by providers, driven by perception of improved efficiency despite recognition that these tools contribute to documentation errors and note bloat. Use varies by practice environment. CP is viewed more favorably compared with CF, as is copying one's own documentation compared with that of another provider. This suggests that solutions should be nuanced and workflow-specific. Future interventions must balance documentation quality with efficiency and take the practice environment and provider role into account.

Keywords

clinical documentation and communications - documentation burden - notes - electronic health records and systems - efficiency improvement

Full Text

References

References
1 West CP, Dyrbye LN, Shanafelt TD. Physician burnout: contributors, consequences and solutions. J Intern Med 2018; 283 (06) 516-529
2 Apathy NC, Rotenstein L, Bates DW, Holmgren AJ. Documentation dynamics: Note composition, burden, and physician efficiency. Health Serv Res 2023; 58 (03) 674-685
3 Sloss EA, Abdul S, Aboagyewah MA. et al. Toward alleviating clinician documentation burden: A scoping review of burden reduction efforts. Appl Clin Inform 2024; 15 (03) 446-455
4 Rotenstein LS, Apathy N, Holmgren AJ, Bates DW. Physician note composition patterns and time on the EHR across specialty types: A national, cross-sectional study. J Gen Intern Med 2023; 38 (05) 1119-1126
5 Steinkamp J, Kantrowitz JJ, Airan-Javia S. Prevalence and sources of duplicate information in the electronic medical record. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5 (09) e2233348
6 Rule A, Bedrick S, Chiang MF, Hribar MR. Length and redundancy of outpatient progress notes across a decade at an academic medical center. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4 (07) e2115334
7 Wang R, Carrington JM, Hammarlund N, Sanchez O, Revere L. An evaluation of copy and paste events in electronic notes of patients with hospital acquired conditions. Int J Med Inform 2023; 170: 104934
8 Cheng CG, Wu DC, Lu JC. et al. Restricted use of copy and paste in electronic health records potentially improves healthcare quality. Medicine (Baltimore) 2022; 101 (04) e28644
9 Digan W, Wack M, Looten V, Neuraz A, Burgun A, Rance B. Evaluating the impact of text duplications on a corpus of more than 600,000 clinical narratives in a French hospital. Stud Health Technol Inform 2019; 264: 103-107
10 Nijor S, Rallis G, Lad N, Gokcen E. Patient safety issues from information overload in electronic medical records. J Patient Saf 2022; 18 (06) e999-e1003
11 Tsou AY, Lehmann CU, Michel J, Solomon R, Possanza L, Gandhi T. Safe practices for copy and paste in the EHR. Systematic review, recommendations, and novel model for health IT collaboration. Appl Clin Inform 2017; 8 (01) 12-34
12 Fanucchi L, Yan D, Conigliaro RL. Duly noted: Lessons from a two-site intervention to assess and improve the quality of clinical documentation in the electronic health record. Appl Clin Inform 2016; 7 (03) 653-659
13 Heiman HL, Rasminsky S, Bierman JA. et al. Medical students' observations, practices, and attitudes regarding electronic health record documentation. Teach Learn Med 2014; 26 (01) 49-55
14 O'Donnell HC, Kaushal R, Barrón Y, Callahan MA, Adelman RD, Siegler EL. Physicians' attitudes towards copy and pasting in electronic note writing. J Gen Intern Med 2009; 24 (01) 63-68
15 Glaser B, Strauss A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory Strategies for Qualitative Research. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press; 1967
16 Ash JS, Corby S, Mohan V. et al. Safe use of the EHR by medical scribes: a qualitative study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021; 28 (02) 294-302
17 Rowlands S, Tariq A, Coverdale S, Walker S, Wood M. A qualitative investigation into clinical documentation: why do clinicians document the way they do?. HIM J 2022; 51 (03) 126-134
18 Vawdrey DK, Cauthorn C, Francis D, Hackenberg K, Maloney G, Hohmuth BA. A practical approach for monitoring the use of copy-paste in clinical notes. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2022; 2021: 1178-1185
19 Stewart E, Kahn D, Lee E. et al. Internal medicine progress note writing attitudes and practices in an electronic health record. J Hosp Med 2015; 10 (08) 525-529
20 Hirschtick RE. A piece of my mind. Copy-and-paste. JAMA 2006; 295 (20) 2335-2336
21 Yackel TR, Embi PJ. Copy-and-paste-and-paste. JAMA 2006; 296 (19) 2315-2316 , author reply 2315–2316
22 Winn W, Shakir IA, Israel H, Cannada LK. The role of copy and paste function in orthopedic trauma progress notes. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2017; 8 (01) 76-81
23 Vogel L. Cut-and-paste clinical notes confuse care, say US internists. CMAJ 2013; 185 (18) E826-E826
24 Graber ML, Siegal D, Riah H, Johnston D, Kenyon K. Electronic health record-related events in medical malpractice claims. J Patient Saf 2019; 15 (02) 77-85
25 Hilliard RW, Haskell J, Gardner RL. Are specific elements of electronic health record use associated with clinician burnout more than others?. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2020; 27 (09) 1401-1410
26 Ma SP, Liang AS, Shah SJ. et al. Ambient artificial intelligence scribes: utilization and impact on documentation time. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2025; 32: 381-385
27 Shah SJ, Devon-Sand A, Ma SP. et al. Ambient artificial intelligence scribes: physician burnout and perspectives on usability and documentation burden. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2025; 32 (02) 375-380
28 Monahan K, Ye C, Gould E. et al. Copy-and-paste in medical student notes: Extent, temporal trends, and relationship to scholastic performance. Appl Clin Inform 2019; 10 (03) 479-486
29 Warner JL, Smith J, Wright A. It's time to wikify clinical documentation: How collaborative authorship can reduce the burden and improve the quality of the electronic health record. Acad Med 2019; 94 (05) 645-650
30 Steinkamp J, Kantrowitz J, Sharma A, Bala W. Beyond notes: Why it is time to abandon an outdated documentation paradigm. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23 (04) e24179

Supplementary Material