The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Variation in Physicians’ Electronic Health Record Documentation and Potential Patient Harm from That Variation
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“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]
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.
Citations
Cites
Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook
(1994) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80231-2 · Cited by 48,420
Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data
Brooks, F. B., Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1996) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/329757 · Cited by 11,129
A New Initiative on Precision Medicine
Collins, F. S., & Varmus, H. (2015) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp1500523 · Cited by 5,202
The “Meaningful Use” Regulation for Electronic Health Records
Blumenthal, D., & Tavenner, M. (2010) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp1006114 · Cited by 2,059
Glickman, M. E., Rao, S. R., & Schultz, M. R. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.012 · Cited by 1,561
Qualitative interviewing the art of hearing data
Rubin, H. J. 1., & Rubin, I. S. 1. (1995) · Cited by 1,460
Achieving a Nationwide Learning Health System
Friedman, C. P., Wong, A. K., & Blumenthal, D. (2010) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3001456 · Cited by 539
Self-citationData from clinical notes: a perspective on the tension between structure and flexible documentation
Rosenbloom, S. T., Denny, J. C., Xu, H., Lorenzi, N., Stead, W. W., & Johnson, K. B. (2011) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/jamia.2010.007237 · Cited by 404
Strategies for interpreting qualitative data
(1995) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.32-4786 · Cited by 266
Schoen, C., Osborn, R., Squires, D. A., & Doty, M. M. (2013) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0879 · Cited by 256
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–117 of 117
Burstein, D. S., Schwartz, N., Ganguly, A., Hanak, M. A., Zimmermann, L. J., & Keshavarzian, A. (2026) · Diagnosis · doi:10.1515/dx-2025-0088
Generative Simulation and Summarization of Neonatal Patient Data
Levine, J., Riarh, G., & Green, J. R. (2026) · Information · doi:10.3390/info17030261
Papathanasiou, A. (2026) · Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics · doi:10.1007/s10815-026-03839-9
Punjabi, N. A., Ogrinc, N. J., Nahra, A., Cabrera, C. I., Howard, N. S., Maronian, N. C., & Zhao, N. W. (2026) · American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · doi:10.1044/2025_ajslp-25-00392
Almodallal, Y. A., Ramsy, N., Knake, L. A., & Schmitz, A. (2026) · Applied Clinical Informatics · doi:10.1055/a-2856-4821
A Quantitative Framework for EHR Cohort RefinementPreprint
Songthangtham, N., Simon, G., & Johnson, S. (2026) · medRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.04.27.26351837
Current state of electronic problems lists in primary care: a rapid scoping review
Nair, R. P., Bekker, I., Singer, A. G., & Lau, F. (2026) · Family Practice · doi:10.1093/fampra/cmag036
Decoding Algorithmic Inequity: Reversing the Generative AI Racial Divide in Healthcare
Davidson, J., Fowe, I. E., Oderinde, A., & Fadeyi, S. A. (2026) · Clinical Therapeutics · doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2026.06.015
Cox, M., Lin, E., Oleck, N. C., Jones, C., Li, N. Y., Mithani, S. K., & Allori, A. C. (2026) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/87276
Fonte, A. P. G. R. D., Domingues, I. G., Barbosa, B., Ferreira, C., van der Molen, T., & de Sousa, A. J. B. C. (2026) · npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41533-026-00525-2
Challenges in Identifying Heart Failure Diagnoses from the Electronic Health Record
Klein, S., Mukhopadhyay, A., HAMO, C. E., Adhikari, S., Samal, L., & Blecker, S. (2026) · Journal of Cardiac Failure - Intersections · doi:10.1016/j.yjcafi.2026.06.009
Gibson, B., Weaver, L., Sattar, U., Kelley, A. T., Judd, J., Knight, S. J., Gordon, A. J., Rupper, R., & Butler, J. M. (2026) · JAMIA Open · doi:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooag121
Conte, M. L., Schlaeger, J. M., Fiol, G. D., Campbell, J. R., Cheville, A. L., Marsolo, K., Stephens, K. A., Ezenwa, M. O., Boyd, A. D., Darby, J. E., et al. (2026) · JAMIA Open · doi:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooag158
Generative large language models in medicine: a scoping review of recent methodological advances
LI, F., Li, J., Cao, W., Li, H., Li, Y., Sun, Z., Chen, D., Duan, T., Li, P., Tizhoosh, H., et al. (2026) · npj Health Systems · doi:10.1038/s44401-026-00137-5
Too hot to handle: LLM temperature and ethical challenges in clinical practice
Owens, E., & Petrou, E. (2026) · JME Practical Bioethics · doi:10.1136/jmepb-2026-000324
Kutscher, E. C., Halket, D., Feinberg, A., Blum, C. J., Koransky, A., Tamler, R., Federman, A. D., & Fishman, M. B. (2026) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-026-10858-w
Fu, S., Wen, A., Schaeferle, G. M., Wilson, P., Demuth, G. O., Ruan, X., Liu, S., Storlie, C. B., & Liu, H. (2022) · Unpublished · doi:10.13140/rg.2.2.29516.54400 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- 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
- PMC
- PMC6848521
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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 › Research and Theory › 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
