What do physicians read (and ignore) in electronic progress notes?
Applied Clinical Informatics, ISSN: 1869-0327, Vol: 5, Issue: 2, Page: 430-444
2014
- 53Citations
- 84Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations53
- Citation Indexes53
- 53
- CrossRef11
- Captures84
- Readers84
- 84
Article Description
Objective: Several studies have documented the preference for physicians to attend to the impression and plan section of a clinical document. However, it is not clear how much attention other sections of a document receive. The goal of this study was to identify how physicians distribute their visual attention while reading electronic notes. Methods: We used an eye-tracking device to assess the visual attention patterns of ten hospitalists as they read three electronic notes. The assessment included time spent reading specific sections of a note as well as rates of reading. This visual analysis was compared with the content of simulated verbal handoffs for each note and debriefing interviews. Results: Study participants spent the most time in the "Impression and Plan" section of electronic notes and read this section very slowly. Sections such as the "Medication Profile", "Vital Signs" and "Laboratory Results" received less attention and were read very quickly even if they contained more content than the impression and plan. Only 9% of the content of physicians' verbal handoff was found outside of the "Impression and Plan." Conclusion: Physicians in this study directed very little attention to medication lists, vital signs or laboratory results compared with the impression and plan section of electronic notes. Optimizing the design of electronic notes may include rethinking the amount and format of imported patient data as this data appears to largely be ignored. © Schattauer 2014.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84901410873&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/aci-2014-01-ra-0003; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25024759; http://www.schattauer.de/index.php?id=1214&doi=10.4338/ACI-2014-01-RA-0003; http://www.schattauer.de/index.php?id=5236&mid=21088&L=1; http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.4338/ACI-2014-01-RA-0003; https://dx.doi.org/10.4338/aci-2014-01-ra-0003; https://www.thieme-connect.de/products/ejournals/abstract/10.4338/ACI-2014-01-RA-0003
Schattauer GmbH
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know