Cited by 28Electronic Health Records SystemsNursing Diagnosis and DocumentationMedical Coding and Health Information

Physician note composition patterns and time on the EHR across specialty types: a national, cross-sectional study.

Open access
Rotenstein, Lisa S., Apathy, Nate, Holmgren, A Jay, Bates, David W.·2023·Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract

Background The burden of clinical documentation in electronic health records (EHRs) has been associated with physician burnout. Numerous tools (e.g., note templates and dictation services) exist to ease documentation burden, but little evidence exists regarding how physicians use these tools in combination and the degree to which these strategies correlate with reduced time spent on documentation.Objective To characterize EHR note composition strategies, how these strategies differ in time spent on notes and the EHR, and their distribution across specialty types.Design Secondary analysis of physician-level measures of note composition and EHR use derived from Epic Systems' Signal data warehouse. We used k-means clustering to identify documentation strategies, and ordinary least squares regression to analyze the relationship between documentation strategies and physician time spent in the EHR, on notes, and outside scheduled hours.Participants A total of 215,207 US-based ambulatory physicians using the Epic EHR between September 2020 and May 2021.Main measures Percent of note text derived from each of five documentation tools: SmartTools, copy/paste, manual text, NoteWriter, and voice recognition and transcription; average total and after-hours EHR time per visit; average time on notes per visit.Key results Six distinct note composition strategies emerged in cluster analyses. The most common strategy was predominant SmartTools use (n=89,718). In adjusted analyses, physicians using primarily transcription and dictation (n=15,928) spent less time on notes than physicians with predominant Smart Tool use. (b=-1.30, 95% CI=-1.62, -0.99, p<0.001; average 4.8 min per visit), while those using mostly copy/paste (n=23,426) spent more time on notes (b=2.38, 95% CI=1.92, 2.84, p<0.001; average 13.1 min per visit).Conclusions Physicians' note composition strategies have implications for both time in notes and after-hours EHR use, suggesting that how physicians use EHR-based documentation tools can be a key lever for institutions investing in EHR tools and training to reduce documentation time and alleviate EHR-associated burden.

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/s11606-022-07834-5

Cites

27 of 27 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?

  • Specialists may still need to manually add these sections to the progress note after ambient AI generation, which may require time and increase total length.

    “Specialists may still need to manually add these sections to the progress note after ambient AI generation, which may require time and increase total length.24”

    From Evaluation of an Ambient Artificial Intelligence Documentation Platform for Clinicians (2025) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Discussion says specialists use notes to convey clinical reasoning and longitudinal data, while the Results associate manual entry with more time on notes and copy/paste with longer notes. The paper does not study ambient AI generation or say specialists must add sections afterward, so it cannot establish the proposed workflow or its effect on note length. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Rotenstein LS, Holmgren AJ, Downing NL, Longhurst CA, Bates DW. Differences in clinician electronic health record use across adult and p A N e t w O p e n . 2021;4(7):e2116375-e2116375.
  2. R: The R Project for Statistical Computing. Accessed November 7, 2021. https://www.r-project.org/ 21. Report from the 25 By 5: Symposium Series to Reduce Documentation Burden on U.S.Clinicians by 75% by 2025. Accessed December 11, 2021. https://www.dbmi.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/25x5_ Executive_Summary.pdf

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rotenstein, L. S., Apathy, N., Holmgren, A. J., & Bates, D. W.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Regenstrief Institute (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Rotenstein, Lisa S.
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2022-11-23
Volume
38
Issue
5
Pages
1119-1126
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W4309885534
Cited by
28
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2
FWCI
3.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
Keywords
clinical documentation, electronic health records, physician burnout, documentation burden, copy and paste, specialty differences
MeSH terms
Cross-Sectional Studies, Documentation, Humans, Physicians, Cluster Analysis, 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