Cited by 62Electronic Health Records SystemsNursing Diagnosis and DocumentationMedical Coding and Health Information

Interaction time with electronic health records: a systematic review

Open access
Pinevich, Yuliya, Clark, Kathryn J., Harrison, Andrew M., Pickering, Brian W., Herasevich, Vitaly·2021·Applied Clinical Informatics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The amount of time that health care clinicians (physicians and nurses) spend interacting with the electronic health record is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the time that health care providers spend interacting with electronic health records (EHR). METHODS: Data are retrieved from Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, (Ovid) Embase, CINAHL, and SCOPUS. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed studies that describe the use of EHR and include measurement of time either in hours, minutes, or in the percentage of a clinician's workday. Papers were written in English and published between 1990 and 2021. PARTICIPANTS: All physicians and nurses involved in inpatient and outpatient settings. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: A narrative synthesis of the results, providing summaries of interaction time with EHR. The studies were rated according to Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs. RESULTS: Out of 5,133 de-duplicated references identified through database searching, 18 met inclusion criteria. Most were time-motion studies (50%) that followed by logged-based analysis (44%). Most were conducted in the United States (94%) and examined a clinician workflow in the inpatient settings (83%). The average time was nearly 37% of time of their workday by physicians in both inpatient and outpatient settings and 22% of the workday by nurses in inpatient settings. The studies showed methodological heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: This systematic review evaluates the time that health care providers spend interacting with EHR. Interaction time with EHR varies depending on clinicians' roles and clinical settings, computer systems, and users' experience. The average time spent by physicians on EHR exceeded one-third of their workday. The finding is a possible indicator that the EHR has room for usability, functionality improvement, and workflow optimization.

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-0041-1733909

Cites

78 of 78 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?

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. Krawiec C, Haidet P. The impact of patient census on PICU attending electronic health record utilization. Critical Care Medicine Conference: 48th Critical Care Congress of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, SCCM; 2019;47(1 Supplement 1). Accessed 2019 at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32215894/

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pinevich, Y., Clark, K. J., Harrison, A. M., Pickering, B. W., & Herasevich, V.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Pinevich, Yuliya
Venue
Applied Clinical Informatics
Published
2021-08
Volume
12
Issue
04
Pages
788-799
ISSN
1869-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3195193001
Cited by
62
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3
FWCI
1.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied Clinical Informatics (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
electronic health records, physician workload, nursing workload, EHR usability, clinical workflow, time and motion study, inpatient care, outpatient care
MeSH terms
Delivery of Health Care, Health Personnel, Humans, Physicians, Workflow, 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