The Impact of Team-Based Ordering Workflows on Ambulatory Physician EHR Time, Order Volume, and Visit Volume.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Nate C Apathy, Alice S Yan, A Jay Holmgren
{"title":"The Impact of Team-Based Ordering Workflows on Ambulatory Physician EHR Time, Order Volume, and Visit Volume.","authors":"Nate C Apathy, Alice S Yan, A Jay Holmgren","doi":"10.1111/1475-6773.70038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To analyze national rates of team-based ordering and evaluate changes in key outcomes following adoption.</p><p><strong>Study setting and design: </strong>We conducted an observational pre-post intervention-comparison study of 249,463 ambulatory physicians across 401 organizations using the Epic EHR. Our intervention was the adoption of team-based ordering, measured as the proportion of orders involving team support. Outcomes include active ordering time, overall EHR time, order volume, and visit volume among adopter physicians.</p><p><strong>Data sources and analytic sample: </strong>We analyzed the distribution and trends in team-based ordering rates from Epic Signal (September 2019-March 2022). We used multi-variable regression in a difference-in-differences framework to evaluate changes in our outcomes among 115 adopters of team-based ordering and 3115 non-adopters. We defined adopters as physicians who demonstrated a one-time shift from 0% of orders to a consistent non-zero share of orders, and non-adopters as those who demonstrated constant 0% teamwork for at least 18 months.</p><p><strong>Principal findings: </strong>Across our study period, 26.2% of orders involved team support, with surgical specialists averaging greater team-based ordering (43.1%) than primary care (22.2%) and medical specialists (23.0%). There was no association between team-based ordering adoption and time spent ordering (-0.13 min/visit, 95% CI: [-0.48 to 0.22]) or total EHR time (-1.42 min/visit, [-3.79 to 0.95]). Adoption was associated with a 26.8% relative increase in order volume (0.47 orders/visit, [0.14-0.80]) and a 22.3% relative increase in visit volume (6.50 visits/week [2.81-10.19]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Team-based ordering rates are relatively low, and new adoption of team-based ordering was not associated with physicians' time spent ordering or in the EHR overall. Teamwork may facilitate substantial increases in both order and visit volume, but a greater level of team-based ordering may be required to realize EHR time savings.</p>","PeriodicalId":55065,"journal":{"name":"Health Services Research","volume":" ","pages":"e70038"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.70038","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To analyze national rates of team-based ordering and evaluate changes in key outcomes following adoption.

Study setting and design: We conducted an observational pre-post intervention-comparison study of 249,463 ambulatory physicians across 401 organizations using the Epic EHR. Our intervention was the adoption of team-based ordering, measured as the proportion of orders involving team support. Outcomes include active ordering time, overall EHR time, order volume, and visit volume among adopter physicians.

Data sources and analytic sample: We analyzed the distribution and trends in team-based ordering rates from Epic Signal (September 2019-March 2022). We used multi-variable regression in a difference-in-differences framework to evaluate changes in our outcomes among 115 adopters of team-based ordering and 3115 non-adopters. We defined adopters as physicians who demonstrated a one-time shift from 0% of orders to a consistent non-zero share of orders, and non-adopters as those who demonstrated constant 0% teamwork for at least 18 months.

Principal findings: Across our study period, 26.2% of orders involved team support, with surgical specialists averaging greater team-based ordering (43.1%) than primary care (22.2%) and medical specialists (23.0%). There was no association between team-based ordering adoption and time spent ordering (-0.13 min/visit, 95% CI: [-0.48 to 0.22]) or total EHR time (-1.42 min/visit, [-3.79 to 0.95]). Adoption was associated with a 26.8% relative increase in order volume (0.47 orders/visit, [0.14-0.80]) and a 22.3% relative increase in visit volume (6.50 visits/week [2.81-10.19]).

Conclusions: Team-based ordering rates are relatively low, and new adoption of team-based ordering was not associated with physicians' time spent ordering or in the EHR overall. Teamwork may facilitate substantial increases in both order and visit volume, but a greater level of team-based ordering may be required to realize EHR time savings.

基于团队的订购工作流程对门诊医生EHR时间、订单量和访问量的影响。
目的:分析全国团队订货率,评价采用团队订货后主要结果的变化。研究设置和设计:我们使用Epic EHR对401个组织的249,463名门诊医生进行了干预前后的观察性比较研究。我们的干预措施是采用基于团队的订单,以涉及团队支持的订单比例来衡量。结果包括主动订购时间、总体电子病历时间、订单量和采用者的访问量。数据来源和分析样本:我们分析了Epic Signal(2019年9月- 2022年3月)基于团队的订购率的分布和趋势。我们在差异中的差异框架中使用多变量回归来评估115名采用团队为基础的排序和3115名非采用团队为基础的排序的结果变化。我们将采用者定义为一次性从0%的订单份额转变为始终如一的非零订单份额的医生,而非采用者定义为至少18个月内始终如一的0%团队合作的医生。主要发现:在我们的研究期间,26.2%的订单涉及团队支持,外科专家平均以团队为基础的订单(43.1%)高于初级保健(22.2%)和医学专家(23.0%)。基于团队的订购采用与订购时间(-0.13分钟/次,95% CI:[-0.48至0.22])或总电子病历时间(-1.42分钟/次,[-3.79至0.95])之间没有关联。采用与订单量相对增长26.8%(0.47单/次,[0.14-0.80])和访问量相对增长22.3%(6.50次/周[2.81-10.19])相关。结论:以团队为基础的订制率相对较低,新的采用团队为基础的订制与医生花费的订制时间或电子病历总体无关。团队合作可能会促进订单和访问量的大幅增加,但可能需要更大程度的基于团队的订单来实现EHR时间节省。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Services Research
Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
5.90%
发文量
193
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Services Research (HSR) is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal that provides researchers and public and private policymakers with the latest research findings, methods, and concepts related to the financing, organization, delivery, evaluation, and outcomes of health services. Rated as one of the top journals in the fields of health policy and services and health care administration, HSR publishes outstanding articles reporting the findings of original investigations that expand knowledge and understanding of the wide-ranging field of health care and that will help to improve the health of individuals and communities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信