Cited by 85Electronic Health Records SystemsMedical Coding and Health InformationNursing Diagnosis and Documentation

Time requirements for electronic health record use in an academic ophthalmology center

Open access
Read-Brown, Sarah, Hribar, Michelle R., Reznick, Leah G., Lombardi, Lorinna H., Parikh, Mansi, Chamberlain, Winston D., Bailey, Steven T., Wallace, Jessica B. +2 more·2017·JAMA Ophthalmology

Abstract

Importance: Electronic health record (EHR) systems have transformed the practice of medicine. However, physicians have raised concerns that EHR time requirements have negatively affected their productivity. Meanwhile, evolving approaches toward physician reimbursement will require additional documentation to measure quality and cost of care. To date, little quantitative analysis has rigorously studied these topics. Objective: To examine ophthalmologist time requirements for EHR use. Design, Setting, and Participants: A single-center cohort study was conducted between September 1, 2013, and December 31, 2016, among 27 stable departmental ophthalmologists (defined as attending ophthalmologists who worked at the study institution for ≥6 months before and after the study period). Ophthalmologists who did not have a standard clinical practice or who did not use the EHR were excluded. Exposures: Time stamps from the medical record and EHR audit log were analyzed to measure the length of time required by ophthalmologists for EHR use. Ophthalmologists underwent manual time-motion observation to measure the length of time spent directly with patients on the following 3 activities: EHR use, conversation, and examination. Main Outcomes and Measures: The study outcomes were time spent by ophthalmologists directly with patients on EHR use, conversation, and examination as well as total time required by ophthalmologists for EHR use. Results: Among the 27 ophthalmologists in this study (10 women and 17 men; mean [SD] age, 47.3 [10.7] years [median, 44; range, 34-73 years]) the mean (SD) total ophthalmologist examination time was 11.2 (6.3) minutes per patient, of which 3.0 (1.8) minutes (27% of the examination time) were spent on EHR use, 4.7 (4.2) minutes (42%) on conversation, and 3.5 (2.3) minutes (31%) on examination. Mean (SD) total ophthalmologist time spent using the EHR was 10.8 (5.0) minutes per encounter (range, 5.8-28.6 minutes). The typical ophthalmologist spent 3.7 hours using the EHR for a full day of clinic: 2.1 hours during examinations and 1.6 hours outside the clinic session. Linear mixed effects models showed a positive association between EHR use and billing level and a negative association between EHR use per encounter and clinic volume. Each additional encounter per clinic was associated with a decrease of 1.7 minutes (95% CI, -4.3 to 1.0) of EHR use time per encounter for ophthalmologists with high mean billing levels (adjusted R2 = 0.42; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: Ophthalmologists have limited time with patients during office visits, and EHR use requires a substantial portion of that time. There is variability in EHR use patterns among ophthalmologists.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.4187

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Read-Brown, S., Hribar, M. R., Reznick, L. G., Lombardi, L. H., Parikh, M., Chamberlain, W. D., Bailey, S. T., Wallace, J. B., Yackel, T. R., & Chiang, M. F.
Affiliations
Oregon Health & Science University (US)
Corresponding author
Chiang, Michael F.
Venue
JAMA Ophthalmology
Published
2017-11-01
Volume
135
Issue
11
Pages
1250
ISSN
2168-6165 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2766982135
Cited by
85
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 2
FWCI
15.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Research to Prevent Blindness (P30 EY010572)
  • National Institutes of Health (EY010572)
  • National Eye Institute (P30EY010572)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (K99LM012238, R00LM012238)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Keywords
ophthalmologists, physician time use, clinical documentation burden, physician productivity, physician reimbursement, physician burnout, physician well-being, physician-patient relationship, physician-patient communication
MeSH terms
Academic Medical Centers, Ophthalmologists, Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Office Visits, Ophthalmology, Oregon, Retrospective Studies, Time Factors, Efficiency, Organizational, Electronic Health Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review