Download PDF
Appl Clin Inform 2014; 05(01): 169-190
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1619454
Research Article
Schattauer GmbH

Determining Primary Care Physician Information Needs to Inform Ambulatory Visit Note Display

M.A. Clarke
1   University of Missouri Informatics Institute, University of Missouri
,
L.M. Steege
2   University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Nursing
,
J.L. Moore
1   University of Missouri Informatics Institute, University of Missouri
3   School of Information Science and Learning Technology, University of Missouri
,
R.J. Koopman
4   Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri
,
J.L. Belden
4   Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri
,
M.S. Kim
1   University of Missouri Informatics Institute, University of Missouri
5   Department of Health Management and Informatics, University of Missouri
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received: 03 September 2013

accepted: 27 February 2013

Publication Date:
20 December 2017 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Background: With the increase in the adoption of electronic health records (EHR) across the US, primary care physicians are experiencing information overload. The purpose of this pilot study was to determine the information needs of primary care physicians (PCPs) as they review clinic visit notes to inform EHR display.

Method: Data collection was conducted with 15 primary care physicians during semi-structured interviews, including a third party observer to control bias. Physicians reviewed major sections of an artificial but typical acute and chronic care visit note to identify the note sections that were relevant to their information needs. Statistical methods used were McNemar-Mosteller’s and Cochran Q.

Results: Physicians identified History of Present Illness (HPI), Assessment, and Plan (A&P) as the most important sections of a visit note. In contrast, they largely judged the Review of Systems (ROS) to be superfluous. There was also a statistical difference in physicians’ highlighting among all seven major note sections in acute (p = 0.00) and chronic (p = 0.00) care visit notes.

Conclusion: A&P and HPI sections were most frequently identified as important which suggests that physicians may have to identify a few key sections out of a long, unnecessarily verbose visit note. ROS is viewed by doctors as mostly “not needed,” but can have relevant information. The ROS can contain information needed for patient care when other sections of the Visit note, such as the HPI, lack the relevant information. Future studies should include producing a display that provides only relevant information to increase physician efficiency at the point of care. Also, research on moving A&P to the top of visit notes instead of having A&P at the bottom of the page is needed, since those are usually the first sections physicians refer to and reviewing from top to bottom may cause cognitive load.

Citation: Clarke MA, Steege LM, Moore JL, Koopman RJ, Belden JL, Kim MS. Determining primary care physician information needs to inform ambulatory visit note display. Appl Clin Inf 2014; 5: 169–190

http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2013-08-RA-0064

Keywords

Primary Care Physicians - Information Seeking Behavior - Information Needs - Electronic Health Record - Data Display - Attitude of Health Personnel - User-Computer Interface
 

  • References

  • 1 Bennett NL, Casebeer LL, Kristofco RE, Strasser SM. Physicians’ Internet information-seeking behaviors. The Journal of continuing education in the health professions 2004; 24 (01) 31-38.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Cao YG, Cimino JJ, Ely J, Yu H. Automatically extracting information needs from complex clinical questions. J Biomed Inform 2010; 43 (06) 962-71. Epub 2010/07/31.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Cheng GYT. A study of clinical questions posed by hospital clinicians. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2004; 92 (04) 445-458.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ebell MH, White L. What is the best way to gather clinical questions from physicians?. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2003; 91 (03) 364-366.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Fozi K, Teng CL, Krishnan R, Shajahan Y. A study of clinical questions in primary care. Medical Journal of Malaysia 2000; 55 (04) 486-492.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Magrabi F, Coiera EW, Westbrook JI, Gosling AS, Vickland V. General practitioners’ use of online evidence during consultations. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2005; 74 (01) 1-12.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Cimino JJ, Li J, Graham M, Currie LM, Allen M, Bakken S, Patel VL. Use of online resources while using a clinical information system. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2003: 175-179. Epub 2004/01/20.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Allen M, Currie LM, Graham M, Bakken S, Patel VL, Cimino JJ. The classification of clinicians’ information needs while using a clinical information system. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2003: 26-30 . Epub 2004/01/20.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kohn LT, Corrigan J, Donaldson MS, McKay T, Pike K. To err is human: National Academy Press Washington eDC DC. 2000
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Braun LM, Wiesman F, Van den Herik HJ, Hasman A. Avoiding literature overload in the medical domain. Stud Health Technol Inform 2006; 124: 497-502. Epub 2006/11/17.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Schoen C, Osborn R, Huynh PT, Doty M, Peugh J, Zapert K. On The Front Lines Of Care: Primary Care Doctors Office Systems, Experiences, And Views In Seven Countries. Health Affairs 2006; 25 (06) w555-w571.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Donaldson MS, Yordy KD, Lohr KN, Vanselow NA. Primary care: America’s health in a new era: National Academies Press. 1996
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Selected patient and provider characteristics for ambulatory care visits to physician offices and hospital outpatient and emergency departments: United States, 2009–2010.. FastStats –Diabetes. Hyattsville, MD: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Grumbach K, Bodenheimer T. A Primary Care Home for Americans. JAMA 2002; 288 (07) 889-893.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Gonzalez-Gonzalez AI, Dawes M, Sanchez-Mateos J, Riesgo-Fuertes R, Escortell-Mayor E, Sanz-Cuesta T, Hernandez-Fernandez T. Information needs and information-seeking behavior of primary care physicians. Ann Fam Med 2007; 5 (04) 345-352. Epub 2007/08/01.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Chambliss ML, Ebell MH, Rosenbaum ME. Answering physicians’ clinical questions: obstacles and potential solutions. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2005; 12 (02) 217-224.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Morrison I, Smith R. Hamster health care. BMJ 2000; 321 7276 1541-1542. Epub 2000/12/22.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Healthcare Reform: Impact on Physicians.. Health Capital Topics [Internet]. 2011 07/25/2011; 4(2):[3 p.]. Available from: http://www.healthcapital.com/hcc/newsletter/2_11/effects.pdf.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Cherry DK, Hing E, Woodwell DA, Rechtsteiner E. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2006 summary. National Health Statistics Reports [Internet].; 2008 :[40 p.].
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Meaningful Use.. Baltimore, MD2012; Available from: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/Meaningful_Use.html.
    PubMed
  • 21 Electronic Health Record.. Chicago, IL. [cited 2012]; Available from: http://www.himss.org/ASP/topics_ehr.asp.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hsiao C-J, Hing E. Use and characteristics of electronic health record systems among office-based physician practices: United States, 2001–2012. NCHS Data Brief. 2012; 111: 1-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Jamoom E, Beatty P, Bercovitz A, Woodwell D, Palso K, Rechtsteiner E. Physician adoption of electronic health record systems: United States. 2011 US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics; 2012.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Menachemi N, Collum TH. Benefits and drawbacks of electronic health record systems. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 2011; 4: 47-55. Epub 2012/02/09.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Standardization IOf.. ISO 9241–11: Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals. (VDTs): Part 11: Guidance on Usability 1998
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 McMullen R. Badly Designed Electronic Medical Records Can Kill You2011. Available from: http://www. fastcodesign.com/1664763/badly-designed-electronic-medical-records-can-kill-you.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Bawden D, Holtham C, Courtney N. editors. Perspectives on information overload. 1999 MCB UP Ltd.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Zeng Q, Cimino JJ, Zou KH. Providing concept-oriented views for clinical data using a knowledge-based system. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2002; 9 (03) 294.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Beasley JW, Wetterneck TB, Temte J, Lapin JA, Smith P, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Karsh B-T. Information Chaos in Primary Care: Implications for Physician Performance and Patient Safety. The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 2011; 24 (06) 745-751.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Miller JG. Information input overload and psychopathology. Am J Psychiatry 1960; 116 (08) 695-704.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Cimino JJ. Use, usability, usefulness, and impact of an infobutton manager. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2006: 151-155. Epub 2007/01/24.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Glossary. 2008 [cited 2012 April 15]; Available from: http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0073521914/student_view0/glossary.html.
    PubMed
  • 33 University Of Missouri Health Care Achieves Highest Level of Electronic Medical Record Adoption.. zUniversity of Missouri Health Care News Releases.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 U. S. EMR Adoption Model Trends2011. Available from: http://www.himssanalytics.org/docs/HA_EMRAM_Overview_ENG.pdf.
    PubMed
  • 35 MU 2011 Annual Report.. 2011 [cited 2012 April 15]; Available from: http://www.mydigitalpublication.com/publication/?i=106794.
    PubMed
  • 36 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2010 Summary Tables.. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2010 [Internet]. 2010. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ahcd/namcs_summary/2010_namcs_web_tables.pdf.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Schensul SL, Schensul JJ, LeCompte MD. Essential ethnographic methods: Observations, interviews, and questionnaires: Altamira Pr;. 1999
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Mc NQ. Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika 1947; 12 (02) 153-157. Epub 1947/06/01.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Cochran’s Q test.. Ostend, Belgium 2013;. Available from: http://www.medcalc.org/manual/cochranq.php.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Alper BS, White DS, Ge B. Physicians answer more clinical questions and change clinical decisions more often with synthesized evidence: a randomized trial in primary care. Ann Fam Med 2005; 3 (06) 507-513.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Bergus GR, Emerson M. Family medicine residents do not ask better-formulated clinical questions as they advance in their training. Family Medicine 2005; 37 (07) 486-490.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Cimino JJ. An integrated approach to computer-based decision support at the point of care. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc 2007; 118: 273-288.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Cogdill KW, Friedman CP, Jenkins CG, Mays BE, Sharp MC. Information needs and information seeking in community medical education. Academic Medicine 2000; 75 (05) 484-486.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Cucina RJ, Shah MK, Berrios DC, Fagan LM. Empirical formulation of a generic query set for clinical information retrieval systems. Stud Health Technol Inform 2001; 84 Pt 1 181-185.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Cullen RJ. In search of evidence: Family practitioners’ use of the Internet for clinical information. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2002; 90 (04) 370-379.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Green ML, Ciampi MA, Ellis PJ. Residents’ medical information needs in clinic: Are they being met?. American Journal of Medicine 2000; 109 (03) 218-223.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Schilling LM, Steiner JF, Lundahl K, Anderson RJ. Residents’ patient-specific clinical questions: Opportunities for evidence-based learning. Academic Medicine 2005; 80 (01) 51-56.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Swinglehurst DA, Pierce M, Fuller JCA. A clinical informaticist to support primary care decision making. Quality in Health Care 2001; 10 (04) 245-249.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Clarke MA, Belden JL, Koopman RJ, Steege LM, Moore JL, Canfield SM, Kim MS. Information needs and information-seeking behaviour analysis of primary care physicians and nurses: a literature review. Health Info Libr J 2013; 30 (03) 178-190.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Chan R, Stieda V. Evaluation of three point-of-care healthcare databases: BMJ Point-of-Care, Clin-eguide and Nursing Reference Centre. Health Info Libr J 2011; 28 (01) 50-58.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Chen ES, Bakken S, Currie LM, Patel VL, Cimino JJ. An automated approach to studying health resource and infobutton use. Stud Health Technol Inform 2006; 122: 273-278.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Del Fiol G, Haug PJ, Cimino JJ, Narus SP, Norlin C, Mitchell JA. Effectiveness of topic-specific infobuttons: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008; 15 (06) 752-759.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Maviglia SM, Yoon CS, Bates DW, Kuperman G. KnowledgeLink: impact of context-sensitive information retrieval on clinicians’ information needs. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13 (01) 67-73.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Gorman PN, Yao P, Seshadri V. Finding the answers in primary care: information seeking by rural and nonrural clinicians. Stud Health Technol Inform 2004; 107 Pt 2 1133-1137.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Schwartz K, Northrup J, Israel N, Crowell K, Lauder N, Neale AV. Use of on-line evidence-based resources at the point of care. Family Medicine 2003; 35 (04) 251-256.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Assessment.. 2009 [cited 2012 April 15]; Available from: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assessment.
    PubMed
  • 57 SOAP note.. [updated 14 March 2012 23:31 UTC; cited 2012 April 15]; Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SOAP_note&oldid=481936433.
    PubMed
  • 58 Davies K, Harrison J. The information-seeking behaviour of doctors: a review of the evidence. Health Info Libr J 2007; 24 (02) 78-94.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Zheng K, Padman R, Johnson MP, Diamond HS. An Interface-driven Analysis of User Interactions with an Electronic Health Records System. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2009; 16 (02) 228-237.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Clinician Perspectives on Electronic Health Information Sharing for Transitions of Care.. Bipartisan Policy Center Health Information Technology Initiative. Washington, DC: Bipartisan Policy Center; 2012. p. 29.
    Google Scholar
  • 61 Collins SA, Currie LM, Bakken S, Cimino JJ. Information needs, Infobutton Manager use, and satisfaction by clinician type: a case study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2009; 16 (01) 140-142.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Currie LM, Graham M, Allen M, Bakken S, Patel V, Cimino JJ. Clinical information needs in context: an observational study of clinicians while using a clinical information system. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2003: 190-194.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 French JRP. Experiments in field settings. Research methods in the behavioral sciences 1953: 98-135.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar