Cited by 19Electronic Health Records SystemsClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsMachine Learning in Healthcare

Effects of Time Constraints on Clinician–Computer Interaction: A Study on Information Synthesis from EHR Clinical Notes

Open access
Farri, Oladimeji, Monsen, Karen A., Pakhomov, Serguei V., Pieczkiewicz, David S., Speedie, Stuart M., Melton, Genevieve B.·2013·Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Abstract

Background Time is a measurable and critical resource that affects the quality of services provided in clinical practice. There is limited insight into the effects of time restrictions on clinicians' cognitive processes with the electronic health record (EHR) in providing ambulatory care. Objective To understand the impact of time constraints on clinicians' synthesis of text-based EHR clinical notes. Methods We used an established clinician cognitive framework based on a think-aloud protocol. We studied interns' thought processes as they accomplished a set of four preformed ambulatory care clinical scenarios with and without time restrictions in a controlled setting. Results Interns most often synthesized details relevant to patients' problems and treatment, regardless of whether or not the time available for task performance was restricted. In contrast to previous findings, subsequent information commonly synthesized by clinicians related most commonly to the chronology of clinical events for the unrestricted time observations and to investigative procedures for the time-restricted sessions. There was no significant difference in the mean number of omission errors and incorrect deductions when interns synthesized the EHR clinical notes with and without time restrictions (3.5±0.5 vs. 2.3±0.5, p=0.14). Conclusion Our results suggest that the incidence of errors during clinicians' synthesis of EHR clinical notes is not increased with modest time restrictions, possibly due to effective adjustments of information processing strategies learned from the usual time-constrained nature of patient visits. Further research is required to investigate the effects of similar or more extreme time variations on cognitive processes employed with different levels of expertise, specialty, and with different care settings.

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 · 10.1016/j.jbi.2013.08.009

Cites

56 of 56 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?

  • Limited interaction impedes comprehensive information collection and patient observation, potentially increasing miscommunication.

    “Limited interaction impedes comprehensive information collection and patient observation, potentially increasing miscommunication [116].”

    From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [116]

    The Conclusion reports that time restrictions led clinicians to retrieve less available patient information from EHR notes. Section 1.2.1 also describes incomplete physician–patient communication during time-restricted visits. The paper does not show that limited interaction impedes patient observation or that it increases miscommunication; its own study concerned EHR-note synthesis, not patient interaction. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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: 1

  1. Patel V, Arocha J, Zhang J. Thinking and reasoning in medicine. Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Farri, O., Monsen, K. A., Pakhomov, S. V., Pieczkiewicz, D. S., Speedie, S. M., & Melton, G. B.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Melton, Genevieve B.
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-12
Volume
46
Issue
6
Pages
1136-1144
ISSN
1532-0464 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2167892823
Cited by
19
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Biomedical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Minnesota
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
time constraints, electronic health records, information synthesis, cognitive processes, outpatient care, medical interns, think-aloud, omission errors, information processing strategies
MeSH terms
Practice Patterns, Physicians', User-Computer Interface, 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