Cited by 35Electronic Health Records SystemsNursing Diagnosis and DocumentationMedical Coding and Health Information

The 9-Item Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9) score is not useful in evaluating EMR (scribe) note quality in Emergency Medicine

Open access
Wang, Andrew, Dunlop, William, Rodda, Hamish, Ben-Meir, Michael, Staples, Margaret, Walker, Katherine J.·2017·Applied Clinical Informatics

Abstract

Summary: Background: Scribes are assisting Emergency Physicians by writing their electronic clinical notes at the bedside during consultations. They increase physician productivity and improve their working conditions. The quality of Emergency scribe notes is unevaluated and important to determine. Objective: The primary objective of the study was to determine if the quality of Emergency Department scribe notes was equivalent to physician only notes, using the Physician Documentation Quality Instrument, Nine-item tool (PDQI-9). Methods: This was a retrospective, observational study comparing 110 scribed to 110 non-scribed Emergency Physician notes written at Cabrini Emergency Department, Australia. Consultations during a randomised controlled trial of scribe/doctor productivity in 2016 were used. Emergency physicians and nurses rated randomly selected, blinded and de-identified notes, 2 raters per note. Comparisons were made between paired scribed and unscribed notes and between raters of each note. Characteristics of individual raters were examined. The ability of the tool to discriminate between good and poor notes was tested. Results: The PDQI-9 tool has significant issues. Individual items had good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha=0.93), but there was very poor agreement between raters (Pearson’s r=0.07, p=0.270). There were substantial differences in PDQI-9 scores allocated by each rater, with some giving typically lower scores than others, F(25,206)=1.93, p=0.007. The tool was unable to distinguish good from poor notes, F(3,34)=1.15, p=0.342. There was no difference in PDQI-9 score between scribed and non-scribed notes. Conclusions: The PDQI-9 documentation quality tool did not demonstrate reliability or validity in evaluating Emergency Medicine consultation notes. We found no evidence that scribed notes were of poorer quality than non-scribed notes, however Emergency scribe note quality has not yet been determined. Citation: Walker KJ, Wang A, Dunlop W, Rodda H, Ben-Meir M, Staples M. The 9-Item Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9) score is not useful in evaluating EMR (scribe) note quality in Emergency Medicine. Appl Clin Inform 2017; 8: 981–993 https://doi.org/10.4338/ACI2017052017050080

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4338/aci2017050080

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 30 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. JJ Tischendorf, 2004, Encoding of diagnosis by medical documentation assistant or ward physician, Dtsch med Wochenschr, 129, 1731

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, A., Dunlop, W., Rodda, H., Ben-Meir, M., Staples, M., & Walker, K. J.
Affiliations
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Cabrini Hospital (AU)
  • Box Hill Hospital (AU)
Venue
Applied Clinical Informatics
Published
2017-07
Volume
08
Issue
03
Pages
981-993
ISSN
1869-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2759593086
Cited by
35
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
3.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied Clinical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
The Cabrini Medical Staff Association
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
electronic health records, documentation quality, emergency department, inter-rater reliability, assessment validity, physician productivity
MeSH terms
Documentation, Emergency Medicine, Humans, Physicians, Quality Control, Retrospective Studies, 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