探索提供者对复制-粘贴和复制-转发在临床文件的看法和态度。

IF 2.2 2区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Applied Clinical Informatics Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-08-06 DOI:10.1055/a-2574-1348
Matthew Hudkins, Jeffrey A Gold, Sky Corby, Joan Ash, Vishnu Mohan
{"title":"探索提供者对复制-粘贴和复制-转发在临床文件的看法和态度。","authors":"Matthew Hudkins, Jeffrey A Gold, Sky Corby, Joan Ash, Vishnu Mohan","doi":"10.1055/a-2574-1348","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Copy-paste (CP) and copy-forward (CF) are common electronic health record (EHR) documentation tools that purportedly improve provider efficiency, but they can also contribute to documentation burden while increasing note bloat and errors. Our understanding of provider perceptions of these tools remains limited.This study aimed to increase understanding of provider perceptions and self-reported usage patterns of CP and CF across different clinical environments and provider roles, including the impact of these tools on clinical documentation quality and efficiency.A survey was developed and administered at a large academic medical center from December 2022 to March 2023. The survey was distributed to medical students, trainees, and faculty. Questions addressed documentation practices, perceived benefits and risks of CP/CF, and attitudes toward future use. Data were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively.Among 913 respondents (22-28% response rate across levels of training), 82% reported using CP, and 52% used CF in clinical documentation. Usage varied significantly by environment, with the highest utilization in inpatient primary services (91% CP, 68% CF) and the lowest in emergency departments (70% CP, 14% CF). Eighty-six percent of providers believed that CP/CF improved efficiency. A majority felt that CP (59-70%) and CF (69-76%) worsened several types of documentation errors. Providers showed stronger acceptance of copying from their own notes (90% CP, 82% CF) compared with others' notes (61% CP, 47% CF).Self-reported use of CP and CF is high by providers, driven by perception of improved efficiency despite recognition that these tools contribute to documentation errors and note bloat. Use varies by practice environment. CP is viewed more favorably compared with CF, as is copying one's own documentation compared with that of another provider. This suggests that solutions should be nuanced and workflow-specific. Future interventions must balance documentation quality with efficiency and take the practice environment and provider role into account.</p>","PeriodicalId":48956,"journal":{"name":"Applied Clinical Informatics","volume":"16 4","pages":"736-746"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12328030/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring Provider Perceptions and Attitudes toward Copy-Paste and Copy-Forward in Clinical Documentation.\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Hudkins, Jeffrey A Gold, Sky Corby, Joan Ash, Vishnu Mohan\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2574-1348\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Copy-paste (CP) and copy-forward (CF) are common electronic health record (EHR) documentation tools that purportedly improve provider efficiency, but they can also contribute to documentation burden while increasing note bloat and errors. Our understanding of provider perceptions of these tools remains limited.This study aimed to increase understanding of provider perceptions and self-reported usage patterns of CP and CF across different clinical environments and provider roles, including the impact of these tools on clinical documentation quality and efficiency.A survey was developed and administered at a large academic medical center from December 2022 to March 2023. The survey was distributed to medical students, trainees, and faculty. Questions addressed documentation practices, perceived benefits and risks of CP/CF, and attitudes toward future use. Data were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively.Among 913 respondents (22-28% response rate across levels of training), 82% reported using CP, and 52% used CF in clinical documentation. Usage varied significantly by environment, with the highest utilization in inpatient primary services (91% CP, 68% CF) and the lowest in emergency departments (70% CP, 14% CF). Eighty-six percent of providers believed that CP/CF improved efficiency. A majority felt that CP (59-70%) and CF (69-76%) worsened several types of documentation errors. Providers showed stronger acceptance of copying from their own notes (90% CP, 82% CF) compared with others' notes (61% CP, 47% CF).Self-reported use of CP and CF is high by providers, driven by perception of improved efficiency despite recognition that these tools contribute to documentation errors and note bloat. Use varies by practice environment. CP is viewed more favorably compared with CF, as is copying one's own documentation compared with that of another provider. This suggests that solutions should be nuanced and workflow-specific. Future interventions must balance documentation quality with efficiency and take the practice environment and provider role into account.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48956,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Clinical Informatics\",\"volume\":\"16 4\",\"pages\":\"736-746\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12328030/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Clinical Informatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2574-1348\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/8/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL INFORMATICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Clinical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2574-1348","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

复制-粘贴(CP)和复制-转发(CF)是常见的电子健康记录(EHR)文档工具,据称可以提高提供商的效率,但它们也可能增加文档负担,同时增加记录膨胀和错误。我们对供应商对这些工具的看法的理解仍然有限。本研究旨在加深对不同临床环境和提供者角色中CP和CF的提供者感知和自我报告使用模式的理解,包括这些工具对临床文件质量和效率的影响。从2022年12月到2023年3月,在一家大型学术医疗中心进行了调查。这项调查分发给了医学院学生、实习生和教员。问题涉及文档实践、CP/CF的获益和风险,以及对未来使用的态度。对数据进行定量和定性分析。在913名受访者中(22-28%的回复率),82%的人报告使用CP, 52%的人在临床文献中使用CF。不同环境的使用率差异很大,住院初级服务的使用率最高(91% CP, 68% CF),急诊科的使用率最低(70% CP, 14% CF)。86%的医疗服务提供者认为CP/CF提高了效率。大多数人认为CP(59-70%)和CF(69-76%)加重了几种类型的文档错误。相比他人的笔记(61% CP, 47% CF),医护人员更愿意抄袭自己的笔记(90% CP, 82% CF)。尽管认识到这些工具会导致文档错误和注释膨胀,但提供者对CP和CF的自我报告使用率很高,因为他们认为效率得到了提高。根据实践环境的不同,使用方法也不同。与CF相比,CP更受欢迎,就像复制自己的文档比复制其他提供商的文档一样。这表明解决方案应该细致入微,并且特定于工作流。未来的干预必须平衡文档质量和效率,并将实践环境和提供者角色考虑在内。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring Provider Perceptions and Attitudes toward Copy-Paste and Copy-Forward in Clinical Documentation.

Copy-paste (CP) and copy-forward (CF) are common electronic health record (EHR) documentation tools that purportedly improve provider efficiency, but they can also contribute to documentation burden while increasing note bloat and errors. Our understanding of provider perceptions of these tools remains limited.This study aimed to increase understanding of provider perceptions and self-reported usage patterns of CP and CF across different clinical environments and provider roles, including the impact of these tools on clinical documentation quality and efficiency.A survey was developed and administered at a large academic medical center from December 2022 to March 2023. The survey was distributed to medical students, trainees, and faculty. Questions addressed documentation practices, perceived benefits and risks of CP/CF, and attitudes toward future use. Data were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively.Among 913 respondents (22-28% response rate across levels of training), 82% reported using CP, and 52% used CF in clinical documentation. Usage varied significantly by environment, with the highest utilization in inpatient primary services (91% CP, 68% CF) and the lowest in emergency departments (70% CP, 14% CF). Eighty-six percent of providers believed that CP/CF improved efficiency. A majority felt that CP (59-70%) and CF (69-76%) worsened several types of documentation errors. Providers showed stronger acceptance of copying from their own notes (90% CP, 82% CF) compared with others' notes (61% CP, 47% CF).Self-reported use of CP and CF is high by providers, driven by perception of improved efficiency despite recognition that these tools contribute to documentation errors and note bloat. Use varies by practice environment. CP is viewed more favorably compared with CF, as is copying one's own documentation compared with that of another provider. This suggests that solutions should be nuanced and workflow-specific. Future interventions must balance documentation quality with efficiency and take the practice environment and provider role into account.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Clinical Informatics
Applied Clinical Informatics MEDICAL INFORMATICS-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
24.10%
发文量
132
期刊介绍: ACI is the third Schattauer journal dealing with biomedical and health informatics. It perfectly complements our other journals Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterMethods of Information in Medicine and the Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterYearbook of Medical Informatics. The Yearbook of Medical Informatics being the “Milestone” or state-of-the-art journal and Methods of Information in Medicine being the “Science and Research” journal of IMIA, ACI intends to be the “Practical” journal of IMIA.
×
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