Accuracy, thoroughness, and quality of outpatient primary care documentation in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) can accelerate documentation and may enhance details of notes, or complicate documentation and introduce errors. Comprehensive assessment of documentation quality requires comparing documentation to what transpires during the clinical encounter itself. We assessed outpatient primary care notes and corresponding recorded encounters to determine accuracy, thoroughness, and several additional key measures of documentation quality. METHODS: Patients and primary care clinicians across five midwestern primary care clinics of the US Department of Veterans Affairs were recruited into a prospective observational study. Clinical encounters were video-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Using the Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9) added to other measures, reviewers scored quality of the documentation by comparing transcripts to corresponding encounter notes. PDQI-9 items were scored from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating higher quality. RESULTS: Encounters (N = 49) among 11 clinicians were analyzed. Most issues that patients initiated in discussion were omitted from notes, and nearly half of notes referred to information or observations that could not be verified. Four notes lacked concluding assessments and plans; nine lacked information about when patients should return. Except for thoroughness, PDQI-9 items that were assessed achieved quality scores exceeding 4 of 5 points. CONCLUSIONS: Among outpatient primary care electronic records examined, most issues that patients initiated in discussion were absent from notes, and nearly half of notes referred to information or observations absent from transcripts. EHRs may contribute to certain kinds of errors. Approaches to improving documentation should consider the roles of the EHR, patient, and clinician together.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.