A Comparison of Musculoskeletal Exam Documentation in Two Electronic Health Record Systems
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction
Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems have changed the way physicians record their exams. Several studies have reviewed the quality of these transcribed exams; some of which have found with regard to arthritic and musculoskeletal conditions significant omissions in the recorded exam.
Methods
Inpatients charts for patients receiving rheumatology consultations at 2 different Indiana hospital systems, both employing unique EHRs, were reviewed. Notes were evaluated for the presence of four major musculoskeletal criteria: axial skeleton, upper extremity, lower extremity, and muscular exams. Exam completeness was assessed by evaluating more specific examination documentation within these major groups. Simple two sided Pearson Chi Square tests were used to assess all other individual patient and management dependent variables for the significance of the effect on exam documentation.
Results
44 study patient cases were reviewed. Of the management dependent variables, the most significant one in affecting the likelihood of a thorough MSK examination being recorded was the location of the patient (p=0.017). Patients admitted through the Emergency room compared to direct admits or ICU transfers were more likely to have an MSK exam recorded. The more detailed exams were recorded by the neurology services and rheumatology fellows. In comparing the two different EHR systems, more detailed examinations were found with users who free typed examinations versus those who used templated exams.
Conclusions`
This study demonstrated the need for optimization of EHR practices with regard to managing patients with arthritic and musculoskeletal conditions. Several patient cases where joint conditions were key components of the patient care had marked omissions of MSK exam documentation. This may likely reflect a disconnect between what occurs during the examination and what is actually transcribed. Various factors may foster these oversights including use of templated notes, copy and paste features, and click fatigue.
Article Details
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
References
2. Reiser SJ. The clinical record in medicine. Part 1: learning from cases. Ann Intern Med 1991;114(10):902-907.
3. Hess V. Formalizing observation: the emergence of the modern patient record exemplified by Berlin and Paris medicine, 1725-1830. Medizinhist J 2010;45(3-4):293-340.
4. Wulff HR, Jungersen KA. Danish provincial physician and his patients; the patient records from the practice of Christopher Detlev Hahn in Aarhus around 1800. Medizinhist J 2005;40(3-4):321-345.
5. Fraser S, Ayres C. The doctor's casebook—a process of discovery. Scott Med J 2009;54(3):36-41.
6. Shephard D. The casebook, the daybook, and the diary as sources in medical historiography. Can Bull Med Hist 2000;17(1-2):245-255.
7. Engle Jr, RL. The evolution, uses, and present problems of the patient's medical record as exemplified by the records of the New York Hospital from 1793 to the present. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc 1991;102:182-189 discussion 189–192.
8. Siegler EL. The evolving medical record Ann Intern Med 2010;153(10):671-677.
9. Gillum RF. From papyrus to the electronic tablet: A brief history of the clinical medical record with lessons for the digital age. The American Journal of Medicine 2013;126(10):853-857.
10. Siegler EL. The evolving medical record Ann Intern Med 2010;153(10):671-677.
11. Camp CL, Smoot RL, Kolettis TN, et. Al. Patient records at Mayo Clinic: lessons learned from the first 100 patients in Dr Henry S. Plummer's dossier model. Mayo Clin Proc 2008;83(12):1396-1399.
12. Reiser SJ. The clinical record in medicine. Part 2: reforming content and purpose. Ann Intern Med 1991;114(11):980-985.
13. American College of Surgeons. Hospital Standardization Series: General Hospitals of 100 or more Beds. Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons. 1919;4:5 Evans RS. Electronic health records: Then, now, and in the future. Yearb Med Inform 2016;(Suppl 1):S48–S61.
14. Berkowitz E. Medicare and medicaid: The past as prologue. Health Care Financ Rev 2005 Winter; 27(2):11–23.
15. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee to Design a Strategy for Quality Review and Assurance in Medicare; Lohr KN, editor. Medicare: A Strategy for Quality Assurance: VOLUME II Sources and Methods. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1990.7, Medicare Conditions of Participation and Accreditation for Hospitals. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK235473/ [Accessed March 7, 2020].
16. Luce JM, Bindman AB, Lee PR. A brief history of health care quality assessment and improvement in the United States. West J Med 1994;160:263–8.
17. Ambinder EP. A History of the shift towards full computerization of medicine. J Oncol Pract 2005;1(2):54–56.
18. Weed LL. The problem oriented record as a basic tool in medical education, patient care and clinical research. Ann Clin Res 1971;3(3):131-4.
19. McDonald CJ, Murray R, Jeris D, Bhargava B, et al. A computer-based record and clinical monitoring system for ambulatory care. Am J Public Health 1977 March;67(3):240-5.
20. Pryor TA, Gardner RM, Clayton PD, et al. J Med Syst 1983;7(2):87-102
21. Stead WW, Hammond WE, Straube MJ. A chartless record--is it adequate? J Med Syst 1983;7(2):103-9.
22. Clayton PD, Anderson RK, Hill C, McCormack M. An initial assessment of the cost and utilization of the Integrated Academic Information System (IAIMS) at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care 1991:109-13..
23. Davis LS, Collen MF, Rubin L, et al. Computer-stored medical record. Comput Biomed Res 1968;1(5):452-69.
24. Blum BI. Understanding computer basics. MD Comput 1984;1(1):59-65.
25. Barnett GO. The application of computer-based medical-record systems in ambulatory practice. New Engl J M 1984;310(25):1643-50.
26. Walker HK. Grady Memorial’s integrated database improves speed, accuracy and cost containment. Comput Healthc 1989. March;10(3):36-7, 40, 2.
27. Ornstein SM, Garr DR, Jenkins RG. A comprehensive microcomputer-based medical records system with sophisticated preventive services features for the family physician. The J Am Board Fam Pract 1993;6(1):55-60.
28. Barnett GO. Computer-stored ambulatory record (COSTAR). Rockville, MD; U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Health Resources Administration, National Center for Health Services Research; 1976.
29. Schultz JR, Cantrill SV, Morgan KG. An initial operational problem oriented medical record system—for storage, manipulation and retrieval of medical data. AFIPS—Conference Proceedings. 1971;38:239-264.
30. Stead WW, Hammond WE. Computer-based medical records: the centerpiece of TMR. MD Comput 1988;5(5):48-62.
31. Salenius SA, Margolese-Malin L, Tepper JE, et al. An electronic medical record system with direct data-entry and research capabilities. Int J Radiat Oncol, Biol, Phys 1992;24(2):369-76.
32. Wormuth DW. SCUT: clinical data organization for physicians using pen computers. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care 1992:845-6.
33. Specthrie L, Berg W, Fishman S, et al. Power to the portables. Healthc Inform 1992;9(8):22-30.
34. Henricks WH, “Meaningful use” of electronic health records and its relevance to laboratories and pathologists. J Pathol Inform 2011;2:7.
35. Hammond WE, Stead WW, Straub MJ, et al. Functional characteristics of a computerized medical record. Methods Inf Med 1980;19157–62.
36. Schriger DL, Baraff LJ, Rogers WH, et al. Implementation of clinical guidelines using a computer charting system. Effect on the initial care of health care workers exposed to body fluids. JAMA 1997;278:1585–90.
37. Schriger DL, Baraff LJ, Rogers, Buller K et al. Implementation of clinical guidelines via a computer charting system: effect on the care of febrile children less than three years of age. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2000;7:186–95.
38. Johnson KB, Serwint JR, Fagan LM, et al. Computer-based documentation: effect on parent and physician satisfaction during a pediatric health maintenance encounter. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2005;159:250–4.
39. Brown SH, Hardenbrook S, Herrick L, et al. Usability evaluation of the progress note construction set. Proc AMIA Symp 2001:76–80.
40. Stetson PD, Morrison FP, Bakken S, et al. Preliminary development of the physician documentation quality instrument. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008;15:534–41.
41. Poissant L, Pereira J, Tamblyn R, Kawasumi Y. The impact of electronic health records on time efficiency of physicians and nurses: A systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005;12:505–16.
42. Weir CR, Hurdle JF, Felgar MA, et al. Direct text entry in electronic progress notes. An evaluation of input errors. Methods Inf Med 2003;42:61–7.
43. Hammond KW, Helbig ST, Benson CC, et al. Are electronic medical records trustworthy? Observations on copying, pasting and duplication. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2003:269–73.
44. Hirschtick RE. A piece of my mind. Copy-and-paste. JAMA 2006;295:2335– 6.
45. Thielke S, Hammond K, Helbig S. Copying and pasting of examinations within the electronic medical record. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76 Suppl 1:S122-8. Epub 2006 Aug 8.
46. Solomon DH, Schaffer JL, Katz JN, et al. Can history and physical examination be used as markers of quality? An analysis of the initial visit note in musculoskeletal care. Med Care 2000;38(4):383-91.
47. Lillicrap MS, Byrne E and Speed CA. Musculoskeletal assessment of general medical in‐patients—joints still crying out for attention. Rheumatology 2003; 42(8):951-954.
48. Myers A, McDonagh JE, Gupta K, et al. More ‘cries from the joints’: assessment of the musculoskeletal system is poorly documented in routine paediatric clerking. Rheumatology 2004;43(8):1045-1049.
49. Miller DD, Getsey CL. Impact of a compliance program for billing on internal medicine faculty's documentation practices and productivity. Acad Med 2001;76:266–272.
50. Collier R, Rethinking EHR interfaces to reduce click fatigue and physician burnout. CMAJ 2018; 190(33):E994–E995.
51. Arsoniadis E.G., Tambyraja R., Khairat S., et al: Characterizing patient-generated clinical data and associated implications for electronic health records. Stud Health Technol Inform 2015; 216: pp. 158-162.
52. Wu, R.R., Himmel, T.L., Buchanan, A.H., et al. Quality of family history collection with use of a patient facing family history assessment tool. BMC Fam Pract 2014 (15): 31.
53. Yadav S, Kanzanji N, Paudel S, et al. Comparison of accuracy of physical examination findings in initial progress notes between paper charts and a newly implemented electronic health record. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 (1):140-144.