Has Clinical Documentation Become a Victim of its Own Popularity?
Now that Meaningful Use money is up for grabs, almost every U.S. hospital is somewhere down the pathway to deploying at least a Stage 1-certified EMR. Once installed, the tab on many of these systems can run as high as nine figures. For that kind of coin, every user in every department should see their daily workflow improve dramatically. Yet industry-wide physician adoption of hospital EMR systems continues to fall short of expectations.
For many users, the source of frustration is the clinical documentation system they’re asked to use. In theory, these tools are designed to make physicians’ lives easier. But too many documentation systems compromise the usability of the EMR for its most important users.
Not surprisingly, physicians resist changing the way they work to use tools that don’t solve their daily challenges. They stick with familiar workflows – even cumbersome tools such as pen and paper – to capture the details of patient encounters. And they leave it to the hospital to figure out how to extract the data they need.
The net result: physicians end up engaging with the EMR as minimally as possible.
Without timely and comprehensive involvement from a significant percentage of physicians, an EMR system cannot help hospitals achieve their clinical, financial and operational improvement goals.
Determining the “usability” of an EMR is less subjective than it sounds. Here’s how usability is defined in the HIMSS Guide to EHR Usability:
Usability is the effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction with which specific users can achieve a specific set of tasks in a particular environment […]
Efficiency is generally the speed with which users can complete their tasks. Which tasks and clinic processes must be most efficient for success? Can you establish targets for acceptable completion times of these tasks? [...]
Effectiveness is the accuracy and completeness with which users can complete tasks. This includes how easy it is for the system to cause users to make errors. User errors can lead to inaccurate or incomplete patient records, can alter clinical decision-making and can compromise patient safety […]
User satisfaction is usually the first concept people think of in relation to “usability.” Satisfaction in the context of usability refers to the subjective satisfaction a user may have with a process or outcome.
Each of these components is measurable; even user satisfaction, while highly subjective, can be measured through user queries. Yet even with a clearly-defined, objective framework of EMR usability, physicians continue to suffer through documentation tools that often fail to meet any of these criteria. Clinical documentation has become a victim of its own exploding popularity.
Achieving Physician-Friendly Documentation, Today and Tomorrow
Thanks to Meaningful Use and other technology-driven initiatives, the value of the data found in clinical notes has skyrocketed. Hospitals now have more incentive than ever to deploy systems that capture, aggregate and transfer data as efficiently as possible.
As the point of entry for a majority of patient information found in the EMR, electronic physician documentation has the added burden of converting notes into usable data. But too often, HIS solutions attempt to solve this problem by delivering electronic documentation that migrates all users to a single, inflexible workflow. Rather than accommodate multiple data entry methods and adapt to user preferences, physicians must instead learn to navigate drop-down menus, check boxes and other pre-defined selections to complete their documentation.
A one-size-fits-all approach to documentation is shortsighted for two reasons. First, “narrative” shouldn’t be a dirty word in the electronic documentation workflow. A comprehensive patient record is much easier to achieve through a blend of structured and unstructured data input. Certain types of notes, such as H&Ps, benefit from the physician’s ability to capture all details of the patient encounter in his or her own words. Elements with repetitive values, such as lab results and vitals, benefit from structured input – even better if these values automatically carry forward daily.
Second, and more important, we can’t lose sight of the fact that we’re asking physicians to alter a very important – and very personal – part of their jobs by asking them to use new clinical documentation solutions. Workflow flexibility is crucial to achieving user satisfaction. Narrative-based capture methods such as dictation remain popular because they’re easy to use. Forcing users to modify their behavior and abandon familiar workflows – to “document to the system” – is a recipe for continued lackluster physician engagement with the EMR.
Ultimately, a truly user-friendly advanced electronic clinical documentation system should empower users to document however they’re comfortable without compromising speed, accuracy, data availability and overall productivity. The specialized technology solutions are in place to make that possible.
Modern speech recognition and transcription systems can convert dictated narrative to structured data. Universal interoperability standards such as HL7 Clinical Document Architecture (CDA) enable that data to integrate seamlessly into the EMR, regardless of which best-of-breed physician documentation solution you’re using.
The only way to know we’re achieving the right balance of structure and narrative is to let the end users guide the design of the finished product. By achieving high rates of physician adoption, hospital CIOs and other stakeholders can finally focus attention on other priorities.
