The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Clinical Documentation in the 21st Century: Executive Summary of a Policy Position Paper From the American College of Physicians
Abstract
Clinical documentation was developed to track a patient's condition and communicate the author's actions and thoughts to other members of the care team. Over time, other stakeholders have placed additional requirements on the clinical documentation process for purposes other than direct care of the patient. More recently, new information technologies, such as electronic health record (EHR) systems, have led to further changes in the clinical documentation process. Although computers and EHRs can facilitate and even improve clinical documentation, their use can also add complexities; new challenges; and, in the eyes of some, an increase in inappropriate or even fraudulent documentation. At the same time, many physicians and other health care professionals have argued that the quality of the systems being used for clinical documentation is inadequate. The Medical Informatics Committee of the American College of Physicians has undertaken this review of clinical documentation in an effort to clarify the broad range of complex and interrelated issues surrounding clinical documentation and to suggest a path forward such that care and clinical documentation in the 21st century best serve the needs of patients and families.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Effect of Clinical Decision-Support Systems: A Systematic Review
Bright, T. J., Wong, A., Dhurjati, R., Bristow, E., Bastian, L., Coeytaux, R. R., Samsa, G., Hasselblad, V., Williams, J. W., Musty, M. D., et al. (2012) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-157-1-201207030-00450 · Cited by 1,200
Hirschtick, R. E. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.295.20.2335 · Cited by 200
Promise of and potential for patient-facing technologies to enable meaningful use
Ahern, D. K., Woods, S. S., Lightowler, M. C., Finley, S. W., & Houston, T. K. (2011) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2011.01.005 · Cited by 189
Cited by
Large Language Models in Healthcare and Medical Applications: A Review
Maity, S., & Saikia, M. J. (2025) · Bioengineering · doi:10.3390/bioengineering12060631 · Cited by 249
Erickson, S. M., Rockwern, B., Koltov, M., McLean, R. M., & for the Medical Practice and Quality Committee of the American College of Physicians* (2017) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m16-2697 · Cited by 238
Clinical Data Reuse or Secondary Use: Current Status and Potential Future Progress
Meystre, S. M., Lovis, C., Bürkle, T., Tognola, G., Budrionis, A., & Lehmann, C. U. (2017) · Yearbook of Medical Informatics · doi:10.15265/iy-2017-007 · Cited by 204
MedSTS: a resource for clinical semantic textual similarity
Wang, Y., Afzal, N., Fu, S., Wang, L., Shen, F., Rastegar-Mojarad, M., & Liu, H. (2020) · Language Resources and Evaluation · doi:10.1007/s10579-018-9431-1 · Cited by 124
Tsou, A., Lehmann, C., Michel, J., Solomon, R., Possanza, L., & Gandhi, T. (2017) · Applied Clinical Informatics · doi:10.4338/aci-2016-09-r-0150 · Cited by 100
Metadata
- Authors
- Kuhn, T., Basch, P., Barr, M., Yackel, T., & for the Medical Informatics Committee of the American College of Physicians*
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 2015-02-17
- Volume
- 162
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 301-303
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- OpenAlex
- W2167357104
- Cited by
- 270
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 60.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clinical Documentation in the 21st Century: Executive Summary of a Policy Position Paper From the American College of Physicians. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/m14-2128
- The paper
- Kuhn, T., Basch, P., Barr, M., Yackel, T., & for the Medical Informatics Committee of the American College of Physicians*. (2015). Clinical Documentation in the 21st Century: Executive Summary of a Policy Position Paper From the American College of Physicians. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/m14-2128
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.