An Evaluation of Copy and Paste Events in Electronic Notes of Patients with Hospital Acquired Conditions
Open accessAbstract
Background The increased use of the copy and paste function (CPF) in Electronic Health Records (EHRs) has raised concerns about possible clinician miscommunication and adverse patient outcomes. Objective This study investigated the prevalence and extent of CPF in the EHRs of patients diagnosed with Hospital-acquired Conditions (HACs). We also examined the association between the use of CPF and patient characteristics. Materials and methods The prevalence and extent of CPF were investigated using electronic clinical notes of 50 patients hospitalized with HACs between 2017 and 2021 at a large academic medical center. Study patients were adults aged 21 and older with a length of stay greater than three days. ANOVA analysis was used to examine the differences in CPF use between patients with different characteristics. Results A total of 7,844 clinical notes across seven note types are compared in the study. The mean patient age was 63.7, with an average length of stay of 15.6 days. 54% of Discharge Summaries, 53% of Consults, and 47% of history and physical (H&P) notes had duplications with the same type of notes. In the Discharge Summary, ED notes, and Plan of Care, duplications accounted for 40% or higher of the full text. H&P and Consults, H&P and Discharge Summary, and Discharge Summary and Consults were more likely to have duplications than between other types of notes. Duplications accounted for 15.5% of the information provided in H&P and Consults. The prevalence of CPF wa…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 copy-paste function in EHRs allows clinicians to reuse existing medical notes without carefully reviewing them again.
“Another contributing factor to missing data is the “copy-paste” function in EHRs, which allows clinicians to reuse existing medical notes without carefully reviewing them again [180,181].”
From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [181]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 22 · Cited by 10
- Authors
- Wang, R., Carrington, J. M., Hammarlund, N., Sanchez, O., & Revere, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Florida Health (US)
- Corresponding author
- Revere, Lee
- Venue
- International Journal of Medical Informatics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-02
- Volume
- 170
- Pages
- 104934
- ISSN
- 1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4311903252
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4
- FWCI
- 1.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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
- copy and paste, electronic health records, hospital-acquired conditions, discharge summaries, clinical notes, patient characteristics, length of hospital stay
- MeSH terms
- Academic Medical Centers, Adult, Female, Humans, Iatrogenic Disease, Length of Stay, Patients, 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