Cited by 117Electronic Health Records SystemsMedical Coding and Health InformationNursing Diagnosis and Documentation

Variation in Physicians’ Electronic Health Record Documentation and Potential Patient Harm from That Variation

Open access
Cohen, Genna R., Friedman, Charles P., Ryan, Andrew M., Richardson, Caroline R., Adler-Milstein, Julia·2019·Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract

Background Physician-to-physician variation in electronic health record (EHR) documentation not driven by patients' clinical status could be harmful. Objective Measure variation in completion of common clinical documentation domains. Identify perceived causes and effects of variation and strategies to mitigate negative effects. Design Sequential, explanatory, mixed methods using log data from a commercial EHR vendor and semi-structured interviews with outpatient primary care practices. Participants Quantitative: 170,332 encounters led by 809 physicians in 237 practices. Qualitative: 40 interviewees in 10 practices. Main measures Interquartile range (IQR) of the proportion of encounters in which a physician completed documentation, for each documentation category. Multilevel linear regression measured the proportion of variation at the physician level. Key results Five clinical documentation categories had substantial and statistically significant (p < 0.001) variation at the physician level after accounting for state, organization, and practice levels: (1) discussing results (IQR = 50.8%, proportion of variation explained by physician level = 78.1%); (2) assessment and diagnosis (IQR = 60.4%, physician-level variation = 76.0%); (3) problem list (IQR = 73.1%, physician-level variation = 70.1%); (4) review of systems (IQR = 62.3%, physician-level variation = 67.7%); and (5) social history (IQR = 53.3%, physician-level variation = 62.2%). Drivers of variation from interviews included user preferences and EHR designs with multiple places to record similar information. Variation was perceived to create documentation inefficiencies and risk patient harm due to missed or misinterpreted information. Mitigation strategies included targeted user training during EHR implementation and practice meetings focused on documentation standardization. Conclusions Physician-to-physician variation in EHR documentation impedes effective and safe use of EHRs, but there are potential strategies to mitigate negative consequences.

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 · 10.1007/s11606-019-05025-3

Cites

32 of 32 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Studies using raw audit logs fit into three broad categories: manual mapping, identification of networks, application of automatic methods.

    “Studies using raw audit logs fit into three broad categories:”

    From Electronic health record activity changes around new decision support implementation: monitoring using audit logs and topic modeling (2025) · cites this paper as [76]

    The Quantitative section describes this study’s use of EHR clickstream logs, and the Analytic Approach describes its own analysis. Neither section classifies studies using raw audit logs into three categories. Searches for the proposed categories and for a three-category classification found no such passage in our copy; page numbers were not available. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cohen, G. R., Friedman, C. P., Ryan, A. M., Richardson, C. R., & Adler-Milstein, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Michigan Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Cohen, Genna R.
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2019-06-10
Volume
34
Issue
11
Pages
2355-2367
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W2950509749
Cited by
117
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3
FWCI
12.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Michigan
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R36 HS023719)
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
electronic health record documentation, clinical documentation quality, patient harm, documentation standardization, EHR design, user preferences, problem list, review of systems, social history, assessment and diagnosis
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Clinical Competence, Documentation, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Physicians, Electronic Health Records, Patient Harm

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