CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 139Electronic Health Records SystemsNursing Diagnosis and DocumentationMedical Coding and Health Information

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Use of Medical Scribes in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review and Future Directions

Open access
Shultz, C. G., Holmstrom, H. L.·2015·The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
DOI 10.3122/jabfm.2015.03.140224
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) hold promise to improve productivity, quality, and outcomes; however, using EHRs can be cumbersome, disruptive to workflow, and off-putting to patients and clinicians. One proposed solution to this problem is the use of medical scribes. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize the literature investigating the effect of medical scribes on health care productivity, quality, and outcomes. Implications for future research are discussed. METHODS: A keyword search of the Cochrane Library, OvidSP Medline database, and Embase database from January 2000 through September 2014 was performed using the terms scribe or scribes in the title or abstract. To ensure no potentially eligible articles were missed, a second search was done using Google Scholar. English-language, peer-reviewed studies assessing the effect of medical scribes on health care productivity, quality, and outcomes were retained. Identified studies were assessed and the findings reported. RESULTS: Five studies were identified. Three studies assessed scribe use in an emergency department, 1 in a cardiology clinic, and 1 in a urology clinic. Two of 3 studies reported scribes had no effect on patient satisfaction; 2 of 2 reported improved clinician satisfaction; 2 of 3 reported an increase in the number of patients; 2 of 2 reported an increase in the number of relative value units per hour; 1 of 1 reported increased revenue; 3 of 4 reported improved time-related efficiencies; and 1 of 1 reported improved patient-clinician interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggests medical scribes may improve clinician satisfaction, productivity, time-related efficiencies, revenue, and patient-clinician interactions. Because the number of studies is small, and because each study suffered important limitations, confidence in the reliability of the evidence is significantly constrained. Given the nascent state of the science, methodologically rigorous and sufficiently powered studies are greatly needed.

Overview

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 · 10.3122/jabfm.2015.03.140224

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Witt RC, Haedtler DR. Nurse-scribe system saves time in the emergency department. J Emerg Nurs 1975;1:23-7.
  2. Google. Google Scholar [About page]. Available from: http://scholar.google.com/intl/en-US/scholar/ about.html. Accessed September 9, 2014.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 139

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Shultz, C. G., & Holmstrom, H. L.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Venue
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Publisher
American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM)
Published
2015-05-01
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
371-381
ISSN
  • 1557-2625 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-7118
DOI
10.3122/jabfm.2015.03.140224
OpenAlex
W1902469417
Cited by
139
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 5
FWCI
1.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
Keywords
medical scribes, electronic health records, health care productivity, quality of care, patient satisfaction, provider satisfaction, patient-clinician interaction, emergency department, cardiology clinic, urology clinic, relative value units, healthcare revenue
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Documentation, Humans, Job Satisfaction, Quality of Health Care, Patient Satisfaction, Efficiency, Organizational, 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