Housestaff, attendings disagree on quality of progress notes

Housestaff, attendings disagree on quality of progress notes

(HealthDay)—Internal medicine attendings and housestaff disagree on the impact of electronic health records (EHRs) on the quality of progress notes, according to a study published online July 2 in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

Elizabeth Stewart, M.D., from the University of California in San Francisco, and colleagues examined the perceptions of internal housestaff and attendings on inpatient progress note quality after implementation of an EHR at four academic institutions. Data were included from 99 completed surveys from interns, 155 from residents, and 153 from attendings.

According to the researchers, following EHR implementation, most housestaff responded that the quality of notes was unchanged or better, while attendings believed note quality was unchanged or worse. Across all domains, attendings' perceptions of housestaff notes were significantly lower than housestaff perceptions of their own notes. Most housestaff viewed the EHR efficiency tools "copy forward" and "autopopulation" to be neutral or somewhat positive, while attendings viewed them as neutral or somewhat negative. There was nearly perfect agreement in terms of housestaff and attendings regarding the purpose of the progress note.

"Attendings and housestaff disagree on the current quality of progress notes and the impact of an EHR on note quality, but agree on the purpose of a progress note," the authors write.

Explore further

Does 24/7 intensivist coverage impact housestaff skills?

More information: Abstract
Full text (subscription or payment may be required)
Journal information: Journal of Hospital Medicine

Copyright © 2015 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Citation: Housestaff, attendings disagree on quality of progress notes (2015, July 13) retrieved 12 August 2022 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors