Cited by 90Electronic Health Records SystemsNursing Diagnosis and DocumentationMedical Coding and Health Information

physician information needs and electronic health records (EHRs): time to reengineer the clinic note

Open access
Koopman, R. J., Steege, L. M. B., Moore, J. L., Clarke, M. A., Canfield, S. M., Kim, M. S., Belden, J. L.·2015·The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Primary care physicians face cognitive overload daily, perhaps exacerbated by the form of electronic health record documentation. We examined physician information needs to prepare for clinic visits, focusing on past clinic progress notes. METHODS: This study used cognitive task analysis with 16 primary care physicians in the scenario of preparing for office visits. Physicians reviewed simulated acute and chronic care visit notes. We collected field notes and document highlighting and review, and we audio-recorded cognitive interview while on task, with subsequent thematic qualitative analysis. Member checks included the presentation of findings to the interviewed physicians and their faculty peers. RESULTS: The Assessment and Plan section was most important and usually reviewed first. The History of the Present Illness section could provide supporting information, especially if in narrative form. Physicians expressed frustration with the Review of Systems section, lamenting that the forces driving note construction did not match their information needs. Repetition of information contained in other parts of the chart (eg, medication lists) was identified as a source of note clutter. A workflow that included a patient summary dashboard made some elements of past notes redundant and therefore a source of clutter. CONCLUSIONS: Current ambulatory progress notes present more information to the physician than necessary and in an antiquated format. It is time to reengineer the clinic progress note to match the workflow and information needs of its primary consumer.

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.2015.03.140244

Cites

26 of 26 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?

  • Questions regarding subjective burden and satisfaction in documentation practices remain unanswered.

    “Questions regarding subjective burden and satisfaction in documentation practices remain unanswered.”

    From Effect of an Electronic Health Record-Based Intervention on Documentation Practices (2024) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Emotion and Frustration section reports physicians’ distress and frustration with EHR notes, addressing an aspect of subjective burden. The Discussion says the study examined information needs during simulated visit preparation, but it does not establish that questions about documentation burden and satisfaction remain unanswered; satisfaction was not assessed. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    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. [20]20. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 3rd ed. New York: Free Press; 1983.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Koopman, R. J., Steege, L. M. B., Moore, J. L., Clarke, M. A., Canfield, S. M., Kim, M. S., & Belden, J. L.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Venue
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Published
2015-05-01
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
316-323
ISSN
  • 1557-2625 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-7118
OpenAlex
W1931861466
Cited by
90
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3
FWCI
14.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Missouri
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, clinical progress notes, physician information needs, cognitive overload, primary care physicians, cognitive task analysis, history of present illness, review of systems
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Cognition, Documentation, Female, Humans, Male, Primary Health Care, Needs Assessment, Qualitative Research, Workflow, Electronic Health Records, Physicians, Primary Care, Quality Improvement

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