Survey: Hospital, Office Physicians Say EHRs Hinder Patient Interaction, in Different Ways

July 7, 2017
While it’s no secret that physicians have complaints about electronic health records (EHRs) and the impact on patient interactions, one survey has found that hospital-based physicians and office-based physicians have slightly different concerns about how maintaining electronic records impacts clinical encounters.

While it’s no secret that physicians have complaints about electronic health records (EHRs) and the impact on patient interactions, one survey has found that hospital-based physicians and office-based physicians have slightly different concerns about how maintaining electronic records impacts clinical encounters.

An analysis by researchers at Brown University and Healthcentric Advisors, and recently published in the Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics, examines hospital-based physicians’ perceptions of the impact of EHRs on patient-physician interaction and contrasts those findings against office-based physicians’ perceptions.

The analysis is based on the open-ended answers that 744 doctors gave to this question on a Rhode Island Department of Health survey in 2014: “How does using an EHR affect your interaction with patients?”

The survey findings indicate widespread agreement among physicians that maintaining electronic health records undermines their connection with patients, however, hospital-based physicians cited different reasons than their office-based counterparts.

Hospital-based physicians commented most frequently that they spend less time with patients because they have to spend more time on computers; office-based physicians, on EHRs worsening the quality of their patient interactions and relationships.

According to the researchers, five main themes emerged for hospital-based physicians, with respondents generally perceiving EHRs as negatively altering patient interactions. “We noted the same five themes among office-based physicians, but the rank-order of the top two responses differed by setting: hospital-based physicians commented most frequently that they spend less time with patients because they have to spend more time on computers; office-based physicians commented most frequently on EHRs worsening the quality of their interactions and relationships with patients,” the researchers wrote in the study.

Office-based physicians typically bring their computers into the exam room, leading one doctor to worry that staring at a computer rather than the patient seemed rude. One doctor is quoted as saying, “ [It’s] like having someone at the dinner table texting rather than paying attention.”

Hospital physicians, meanwhile, typically perform their record keeping outside the exam room, and, to this point, one doctor said, “I now spend much less time [with] patients because I know I have hours of data entry to complete.”

A Brown University article about the study pointed out that while “office-based physicians mainly complained about patient interaction and hospital-based physicians primarily worried over reduced time for patients, each group’s second-most common lament was the other group’s most common. They share the same concerns, albeit in distinct orders.”

The researchers also point out in the study that hospital-based physicians report benefits from using EHRs, ranging from better information access to improved patient education and communication, however, “unintended negative consequences are more frequent themes.”

“When comparing themes across settings, we note that hospital-based physicians more frequently comment on the use of EHRs to feel more prepared for the clinical encounter, while office-based physicians more frequently comment on alteration of workflow and the depersonalization of relationships. Our findings can be used to shape interventions to improve how EHRs are used in inpatient settings and to tailor those interventions to specific specialties, with the end-goal of improving both physician satisfaction and patient experience,” the researchers wrote.

In the Brown University article, study co-author Rebekah Gardner, M.D., an associate professor of medicine at the Warren Alpert Medical School and a senior medical scientist with Healthcentric Advisors, noted that federal “Meaningful Use” standards have vastly expanded the amount of information that doctors must capture, and that studies have shown that the burden of meticulously filling out electronic health records is a major cause of physicians experiencing burnout.

 “Physicians who are burnt out provide lower-quality care,” Gardner said in that article. “What this speaks to is that we, as physicians, need to demand a rethinking of how quality is measured and if we’re really getting the quality we hoped when we put in EHRs. There are unintended consequences of measuring quality as it’s currently being done.”

Sponsored Recommendations

Ask the Expert: Is Your Patients' Understanding Putting You at Risk?

Effective health literacy in healthcare is essential for ensuring informed consent, reducing medical malpractice risks, and enhancing patient-provider communication. Unfortunately...

Beyond the Silos: Transforming Coordinated Care Across Healthcare Systems

Coordinated healthcare is vital to delivering a high-quality patient experience, yet it has been difficult to systematize across all healthcare settings. Although it has largely...

The Healthcare Provider's Guide to Accelerating Clinician Onboarding

Improve clinician satisfaction and productivity to enhance patient care

ASK THE EXPERT: ServiceNow’s Erin Smithouser on what C-suite healthcare executives need to know about artificial intelligence

Generative artificial intelligence, also known as GenAI, learns from vast amounts of existing data and large language models to help healthcare organizations improve hospital ...

According to an Oct. 10 press release, a report by the World Health Organization (WHO) finds that vaccines against 24 pathogens could reduce the number of antibiotics needed by 22% or 2.5 billion defined daily doses globally every year, supporting worldwide efforts to address antimicrobial resistance (AMR). While some of these vaccines are already available but underused, others would need to be developed and brought to the market as soon as possible. AMR occurs when bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites no longer respond to antimicrobial medicines, making people sicker and increasing the risk of illness, death and the spread of infections that are difficult to treat. AMR is driven largely by the misuse and overuse of antimicrobials, yet, at the same time, many people around the world do not have access to essential antimicrobials. Each year, nearly 5 million deaths are associated with AMR globally. Vaccines are an essential part of the response to reduce AMR as they prevent infections, reduce the use and overuse of antimicrobials, and slow the emergence and spread of drug-resistant pathogens. The new report expands on a WHO study published in BMJ Global Health last year. It estimates that vaccines already in use against pneumococcus pneumonia, Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib, a bacteria causing pneumonia and meningitis) and typhoid could avert up to 106 000 of the deaths associated with AMR each year. An additional 543 000 deaths associated with AMR could be averted annually when new vaccines for tuberculosis (TB) and Klebsiella pneumoniae, are developed and rolled out globally. While new TB vaccines are in clinical trials, one against Klebsiella pneumoniae is in early stage of development.
dreamstime_xxl_210174616_1