Clinicians’ reasoning as reflected in electronic clinical note-entry and reading/retrieval: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis

• Published in: Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA Vol. 26; no. 2; pp. 172 - 184
• Main Authors: Colicchio, Tiago K, Cimino, James J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Oxford University Press 01.02.2019
• Subjects: Documentation - methods; Editor's Choice; Electronic Health Records; Humans; Information Storage and Retrieval; Physicians; Qualitative Research; Reviews; electronic health records; clinical documentation; cognition; documentation/methods
• ISSN: 1067-5027; 1527-974X
• DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocy155

Abstract Objective To describe the literature exploring the use of electronic health record (EHR) systems to support creation and use of clinical documentation to guide future research. Materials and Methods We searched databases including MEDLINE, Scopus, and CINAHL from inception to April 20, 2018, for studies applying qualitative or mixed-methods examining EHR use to support creation and use of clinical documentation. A qualitative synthesis of included studies was undertaken. Results Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed in detail. We briefly reviewed 9 studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria but provided recommendations for EHR design. We identified 4 key themes: purposes of electronic clinical notes, clinicians’ reasoning for note-entry and reading/retrieval, clinicians’ strategies for note-entry, and clinicians’ strategies for note-retrieval/reading. Five studies investigated note purposes and found that although patient care is the primary note purpose, non-clinical purposes have become more common. Clinicians’ reasoning studies (n = 3) explored clinicians’ judgement about what to document and represented clinicians’ thought process in cognitive pathways. Note-entry studies (n = 6) revealed that what clinicians document is affected by EHR interfaces. Lastly, note-retrieval studies (n = 12) found that “assessment and plan” is the most read note section and what clinicians read is affected by external stimuli, care/information goals, and what they know about the patient. Conclusion Despite the widespread adoption of EHRs, their use to support note-entry and reading/retrieval is still understudied. Further research is needed to investigate approaches to capture and represent clinicians’ reasoning and improve note-entry and retrieval/reading.