Where you surprised with the study’s findings, or did the findings resonate with what you have experienced?
I would say the outpatient data was not at all surprising to us; it reinforces what’s been shown in other studies. This was a fairly large data sample compared to other qualitative studies, which have been more focus groups and the nature of that study design limits the number of study participants. It was gratifying to see that we certainly reinforced findings that have been found elsewhere, and we were able to show that across specialties as well, which is different, and that was not surprising but it was validating. For us, the inpatient findings were surprising in that computers really do bother inpatient physicians a lot, but for different reasons. Thinking about it, it makes sense. But we didn’t typically get ad hoc comments from inpatient physicians about their distress. Reading those comments and seeing their perspectives was interesting and, we feel, hadn’t been shared before.
What are the implications of these study findings, for physicians, for technology vendors and even for health IT policymakers?
Certainly, reading this makes you think about, ‘Okay, now what, what do we do with this?’ I would say there may be different answers in the different settings. There are folks, especially at the University of Chicago, who are doing great work on how outpatient physicians can better incorporate the EHRs into the patient visits. They have models where they instruct physicians; when you walk into the exam room, don’t turn on the computer, greet the patient, make eye contact, do what’s called ‘honoring the golden minute’ and have that face-to-face conversation before turning on the computer and also narrate whatever you’re doing on the computer as you do it and face the screen so that it’s also facing the patient. And these are all strategies to engage the patient, bring the patient into that computer experience, so the patient doesn’t feel so ignored. There is some merit to those strategies to really bring the patient in and try to improve the relationship, as it stands. It will be interesting when they take those studies to the next step and measure what patients think of that, that will be helpful to see.
In the inpatient setting, that’s not the issue we found, so we think the solutions there may be different. In the inpatient setting, we’ve heard loud and clear about the documentation burden and, certainly, outpatient physicians will be the second loudest voice on that. And what we’ve heard is that there is so much in the documentation requirements for quality measures, for billing, for public reporting; the EHR is there to serve so many different masters. It’s really not just a chart for clinical care. The way we use the EHR and the process of reporting information about a patient visit really reflects the fact that we’re trying to serve so many masters at one time.
So, most inpatient and outpatient doctors would say, ‘Look, we have to reduce the documentation burden,’ and then in a similar vein, most outpatient and inpatient physicians, particularly inpatient, would say that if the user interface is so clunky and the way we enter data is not in keeping with how we think through a patient case and how we do a patient history, that we suffer slowdowns just with the data entry piece, even if we’re good typists, just the data entry part of it is so non-intuitive and disjointed.
Many healthcare leaders advocate the use of medical scribes to ease the physician documentation burden. What are your thoughts on the use of scribe to address this issue?
The use of scribes is really interesting. There’s two models for scribe use—one, which is more common, is the fly on the wall model. The scribe is recording everything the physician is saying. I see the point of that, but it’s weird to have that other person in the exam room, but the doctors I know who use scribes have them find them to be a lifesaver. The other model is treating the scribe as a member of the healthcare team, so a nursing assistant, and they may participate in the visit too, so they are not just silently typing things. They might do the visit wrap-up or other things related to the visit, and that may feel a little more organic for the patient. Scribes are ultimately a symptom of a larger problem, which is that the EHRs are not useable in a way that is supportive of physicians. It’s a way of treating a symptom, but not curing the problem.
What do you think needs to be done to address the usability issue?
I think the problem is the documentation burden, the usability of the EHRs and making those more intuitive, and, this may be pie in the sky, trying to separate out the billing pieces. The way we do billing is very challenging and requires documentation in certain fields and certain phrases and all those these things are not harmonious with how doctors think and talk and would like to record information about patients. So, I think separating out the billing somehow, and figuring out ways to measure quality that doesn’t require documentation in certain fields, all those things are very challenging. I think the tech industry is up for it, but there hasn’t been much motivation for them to do anything differently, because people are getting paid, quality measures are being reported, and so not everyone is so interested in doctors’ complaining. We otherwise have it pretty good. I think there is not so much sympathy. I think the real issue is that there is growing data and evidence that stress around EHR usage leads to physician burnout, and that is a quality issue, that is a workforce issue and so that may be a place where physicians’ voices may be more compelling.
Get the latest information on Meaningful Use and attend other valuable sessions at this two-day Summit providing healthcare leaders with educational content, insightful debate and dialogue on the future of healthcare and technology.