Cited by 76Electronic Health Records SystemsMedical Coding and Health InformationNursing Diagnosis and Documentation

Local Investment in Training Drives Electronic Health Record User Satisfaction

Open access
Longhurst, Christopher, Davis, Taylor, Maneker, Amy, Eschenroeder, H., Dunscombe, Rachel, Reynolds, George, Clay, Brian, Moran, Thomas +4 more·2019·Applied Clinical Informatics

Abstract

Background and Significance Despite decades of effort and billions of dollars of investment, the electronic health record (EHR) has not lived up to its potential to improve care, reduce costs, or revolutionize the experience for caregivers.[ 1 ] Many people point to poor technical usability as a root cause of these failings.[ 2 ] To find solutions to these challenges, the Arch Collaborative organizations (signed below) are working together to jointly study the feedback of their EHR users. After collecting responses from over 72,000 physicians, nurses, advanced practice professionals, and residents across 156 provider organizations, we are identifying key opportunities to derive greater value from the EHR investments that our organizations have collectively made (See details of survey methods in the [ supplementary Material ], available in the online version). The extensive feedback from tens of thousands of users reveals critical gaps in users' understanding of how to optimize their EHR. Therefore, we as an industry have an opportunity to improve EHR adoption by investing in EHR learning and personalization support for caregivers. If health care organizations offered higher-quality educational opportunities for their care providers—and if providers were expected to develop greater mastery of EHR functionality—many of the current EHR challenges would be ameliorated.[ 3 ] We came to this conclusion after discovering the wide variation in EHR experience that exists within all EHR customer bases (see [ Table 1 ]). This variation cannot be ignored as it is not caused by differences in regulatory burden or programing design. We express concern that user competency often does not receive the strong focus it needs. These findings do not negate the need for EHR developers to continue to improve their user interfaces to be more intuitive, nor do they negate the critical need to reexamine the current regulatory and billing requirements that drive so much of the clinical documentation burden faced by providers today, but we believe that a greater focus on education and training is the overlooked opportunity that could enable EHR technology to drive substantial gains in the quadruple aim.[ 4 ] [ 5 ] Table 1 Variation in experience by EHR Number of organizations with vendor deployed (and >10 surveys collected) Lowest organization net EHR experience score Highest organization net EHR experience score Vendor 1 104 −13 73 Vendor 2 26 −51 43 Vendor 3 13 −58 31 Vendor 4 12 −41 54 Vendor 5 7 −26 42 Vendor 6 5 −15 21 Vendor 7 5 −60 −42 Abbreviation: EHR, electronic health record. Protection of Human and Animal Subjects This study is considered exempt from the Institutional Review Board review as defined by 45 CFR 46.101(b). * The list of Arch Collaborative members appears in [ Supplementary Material ] (available in the online version). Supplementary Material Supplementary Material

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 · 10.1055/s-0039-1688753

Cites

14 of 14 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?

  • Survey respondents may conflate their EHR usability with the burdens of documentation due to regulatory, clerical, or administrative requirements or local implementation that manifest in the EHR.

    “Fourth, survey respondents may conflate their EHR usability with the burdens of documentation due to regulatory, clerical, or administrative requirements or local implementation that manifest in the EHR (eg, individual proficiency).12,36,37”

    From The Association Between Perceived Electronic Health Record Usability and Professional Burnout Among US Physicians (2020) · cites this paper as [37]

    In Background and Significance (page not provided), the paper distinguishes technical usability from user competency and says regulatory and billing requirements drive clinical documentation burden. It does not establish that survey respondents conflate these issues, or specifically address clerical and administrative requirements as sources of that conflation. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Longhurst, C., Davis, T., Maneker, A., Eschenroeder, H., Dunscombe, R., Reynolds, G., Clay, B., Moran, T., Graham, D., Dean, S., Adler-Milstein, J., & Collaborative, O. B. O. T. A.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego Health, La Jolla, California, United States
  • KLAS Enterprises LLC, Orem, Utah, United States
  • Akron, Ohio, United States
  • OrthoVirginia (US)
  • National Health Service (GB)
  • Omaha, Nebraska, United States
  • UC San Diego Health System (US)
  • Northwestern Medicine (US)
  • Springfield, Illinois, United States
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • University of California San Francisco Center for Clinical Informatics and Improvement Research, San Francisco, California, United States
Venue
Applied Clinical Informatics
Published
2019-03
Volume
10
Issue
02
Pages
331-335
ISSN
1869-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2946676436
Cited by
76
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 2
FWCI
12.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied Clinical Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • 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
health records, EHR training, EHR usability, EHR adoption, user competence, clinical documentation burden, Quadruple Aim, health care provider education, EHR interoperability
MeSH terms
Humans, Personal Satisfaction, Physicians, Software, 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