Cited by 94Electronic Health Records SystemsMedical Coding and Health InformationTechnology and Human Factors in Education and Health

The complex case of EHRs: examining the factors impacting the EHR user experience

Open access
Tutty, Michael A, Carlasare, Lindsey E, Lloyd, Stacy, Sinsky, Christine A·2019·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

Physicians can spend more time completing administrative tasks in their electronic health record (EHR) than engaging in direct face time with patients. Increasing rates of burnout associated with EHR use necessitate improvements in how EHRs are developed and used. Although EHR design often bears the brunt of the blame for frustrations expressed by physicians, the EHR user experience is influenced by a variety of factors, including decisions made by entities other than the developers and end users, such as regulators, policymakers, and administrators. Identifying these key influences can help create a deeper understanding of the challenges in developing a better EHR user experience. There are multiple opportunities for regulators, policymakers, EHR developers, payers, health system leadership, and users each to make changes to collectively improve the use and efficacy of EHRs.

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 · 10.1093/jamia/ocz021

Cites

37 of 37 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?

  • For EHR interventions, user experience depends on regulatory, organizational, and vendor priorities rather than those of users, particularly when users are residents who frequently rotate on and off service.

    “This imperative is especially important for electronic health record (EHR) interventions, for which the user experience depends on regulatory, organizational, and vendor priorities rather than those of users, particularly when users are residents who are frequently rotating on and off service (5).”

    From Cocreating the ICU-PAUSE Tool for Intensive Care Unit–Ward Transitions (2022) · cites this paper as [5]

    The EHR USER EXPERIENCE section (page not provided) says that decisions by regulators, healthcare organizations, and vendors affect users’ experience, including factors outside users’ control. The EHR VENDOR INFLUENCES section adds that many products were designed for billing and regulatory requirements rather than clinician use. The paper does not address residents rotating on and off service, and it does not say that user priorities have no influence. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • EHR notes and tools are often designed with minimal or no end-user input.

    “These benefits are particularly salient for tools to support EHR notes and tools, which are frequently both over- and underdesigned at the same time (17, 18) and are often designed with minimal or no end-user input (5).”

    From Cocreating the ICU-PAUSE Tool for Intensive Care Unit–Ward Transitions (2022) · cites this paper as [5]

    The EHR VENDOR INFLUENCES section says it is not uncommon for clinicians to be absent from vendor-product usability testing and that many EHR products were designed around billing and payer requirements rather than clinician use. This supports the concern about limited end-user involvement, but it does not establish how often EHR note tools specifically are designed with minimal or no end-user input. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • 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”

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
Tutty, M. A., Carlasare, L. E., Lloyd, S., & Sinsky, C. A.
Affiliations
American Medical Association (US)
Corresponding author
Tutty, Michael A
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2019-04-02
Volume
26
Issue
7
Pages
673-677
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2928914367
Cited by
94
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 2
FWCI
12.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (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 › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Technology and Human Factors in Education and Health
Keywords
electronic health records, physician burnout, administrative burden, EHR design, health information technology regulation, health policy, health system leadership, EHR adoption
MeSH terms
Health Information Interoperability, Burnout, Professional, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Physicians, United States, Government Regulation, 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