Skip to main content

EHR Work Measures Proposed to Address Burnout

Electronic health record (EHR) vendors should imbed metrics into their systems to measure how EHRs affect clinicians' work, experts write in a commentary published online October 10 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
Yumi T. DiAngi, MD, a fellow in clinical informatics at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California, and colleagues propose six areas metrics should cover and recommended the creation of a "national council of clinicians" to design measures and create guidelines to address privacy and other issues.
"The EHR, which was intended to improve patient care, has had the ironic and unintended consequence of impairing practice efficiency, largely because of poor design, a focus on regulatory reporting, and the burden placed on clinicians by data entry," they write. EHRs have also led to high levels of burnout as physicians' satisfaction in their work has declined, they note.
To gain insight into the stresses that have produced this burnout, the coauthors suggested the establishment of EHR work metrics in these categories:
  • Work after work: The number of hours a clinician spends logged onto the EHR during evenings, weekends, and vacations. The coauthors view this as a key indicator of lifestyle balance.
  • Click counts: The number of clicks per day or the number of clicks needed to accomplish common workflow tasks. This measure could help improve work flow at both the local level, with changes to things such as log-in routines, and could drive vendors to make improvements in the EHRs themselves.
  • Teamwork: Measures the ratio of staff-entered to physician-entered EHR tasks, such as prescriptions, visit notes, inbox messages, and orders. These metrics could show how well tasks are distributed to the appropriate team members, the authors note.
  • Being present: Measures that capture how much assistance physicians receive from staff with EHR documentation, order entry, and chart review. The goal of these metrics would be to show how much personal attention physician can give patients during visits.
  • Fair pay: Measures of how much uncompensated EHR work physicians currently need to do. This category includes answering patient emails, providing medication refills, and managing patient-generated health data.
  • Regulatory balance: Measures of pay-for-performance-related EHR clicks and billing-related EHR documentation.
The proposed metrics "will help capture facilitators of and impediments to professional fulfillment," Dr DiAngi and colleagues write. The data might be used, they said, to help researchers identify how EHR interaction affects care delivery and patient outcomes. In addition, they said, the information could help administrators and clinicians work together to increase professional satisfaction.
In the view of the coauthors, health system leaders, along with other stakeholders such as regulators, payers, and EHR vendors, are obligated to provide clinicians with "adequate support and usable tools" to avoid physician burnout.
Why should health IT developers want to rewrite their programs to include the proposed metrics? "Health professional burnout is a public health crisis," coauthor Christine Sinsky, MD, vice president of professional satisfaction for the American Medical Association, told Medscape Medical News. "It is incumbent upon vendors to care about the well-being of the user."
If the metrics were imbedded in EHRs, the data from them could eventually be made public on a voluntary basis, Dr Sinsky said. The comparisons between the users of different EHRs might prompt design improvements to increase the usability of these systems, she suggested. Comparing the data from different instances of the same EHR might show how EHR implementation affects usability and the burden on clinicians.

Difficulties in Measuring EHR Effect

Charles Kilo, MD, who formerly led the Institute of Healthcare Improvement's practice redesign project and who now practices part time at Greenfield Health in Portland, Oregon, told Medscape Medical News that he is not sure whether the measures proposed in the commentary are a good idea. "You don't measure something unless you're going to do something about it," he said, and the suggested metrics are neither specific enough nor attributable enough to prompt positive remedies.
Some of the proposed measures, noted Dr Kilo, who until recently was chief medical officer and vice president for quality at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, concern issues that are under a vendor's control, and others are under an institution's or a clinic's control. Even the number of clicks required to complete a particular task can be at least partly determined by a health system's IT staff, which is able to customize most EHRs, he noted. So comparing the performance of users of different EHRs would be a real challenge.
Moreover, Dr Kilo said, "It's not so easy to draw a straight line between EHRs and physician dissatisfaction, because there are many other drivers of dissatisfaction" in healthcare. Despite the benefits of EHRs, including the ability to prescribe directly from the exam room and the ability to review labs in real time, for example, "the EHR is in many ways the whipping boy for just so much dissatisfaction with what's going on in healthcare," he said.
Although he did not dispute the commentary's contention that EHRs can reduce productivity and force physicians to take work home regularly, he said that many other factors must be considered, including a physician's practice patterns and personal efficiency, the way his or her organization set up the EHR, and how the practice has organized its care teams.
Dr Kilo was intrigued by the suggestion that measuring the amount of time that physicians and other care team members spend on routine tasks might indicate how much work physicians were doing that could be delegated to other clinicians. Most organizations that have care teams cannot measure how well they are performing, he said. "An EHR could be a new tool to measure that. It's worth validating, and I'd like to see some studies validate that."
The authors and Dr Kilo have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
Ann Intern Med. Published online October 10, 2017. Abstract

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Missing Data Lead FDA Panel to Vote Against Rivaroxaban for ACS May 23, 2012 (Updated May 24, 2012) (Silver Spring, Maryland) — The missing data issues plaguing the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 trial of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting, the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus clopidogrel, or ticlopidine. Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the ATLAS ACS TIMI 46 phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the risk of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, but the studies were hindered by early patient withdrawals and missing data. We Don't Know What We're Missing Based on the ATLAS ACS 2 results, FDA reviewer Dr Karen Hicks recommended approval of rivaroxaban for the requested indications except all-cause mortality. However, another FDA reviewer, Dr Thomas Marciniak, was adamant that the trial results are not interpretable because about 12% of the patients had incomplete follow-up, far higher than the 1% to 1.5% differences in the end-point rates between rivaroxaban and placebo. A total of 1294 subjects discontinued the trial prematurely, and the company was only able to contact 183, of which 177 were confirmed to be alive. Because of the patient dropouts, the company adopted a "modified intention-to-treat analysis," whereby patients were observed for 30 days after randomization or the global end date for the trial, instead of observing all the patients until the end of the trial as the FDA originally suggested. Marciniak criticized the sponsor's efforts to follow the patients and said that three patient deaths not counted in the modified intention-to-treat analysis may just be the "tip of the iceberg." Because the percentage of patients whose ultimate vital status remains unknown is much greater than the reported differences in mortality rates, the claimed mortality benefits are not reliable. The majority of the panel sided with Marciniak. For example, Dr Sanjay Kaul (University of California, Los Angeles) voted "no" because "there was enough uncertainty in the quality and robustness of the data that dissuaded me from voting yes. . . . The 'missingness' of the data doesn't invalidate it, but it certainly makes it hard to infer [the conclusion]." Dr Steven Nissen (Cleveland Clinic, OH) said that the decision to use the modified intention-to-treat analysis had a "profound impact" on the interpretability of the data. "It's saying we don't care what happens after 30 days, [and] that colored the trial in ways we couldn't recover from." Given the risk of major bleeding, "I want to see better evidence that this strategy of adding an Xa inhibitor or a direct thrombin inhibitor or something else to a good antiplatelet agent is robustly better for the patient," Nissen said. He recommends that the companies run a new trial of the 2.5 twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban using a strict intention-to-treat approach, but, he said, "I don't expect the death benefit to be too robust." Several panelists said they were concerned that the patients who dropped out of the trial were disproportionately likely to have a bleeding event, which led them to quit the trial, or a "protopathic" event, as statistician Dr Scott Emerson (University of Washington, Seattle) put it. "We're worried that an impending event is what is changing their behavior. We see that all the time in clinical trials--that regularly measured end points do not pick up [all of] the events," he said. He said that since the company was only able to contact 183 of the over 1200 patients who dropped out, it is possible that the dropouts skew the outcomes comparison of the trial. "Differential event rates after dropout are the number-one thing we're afraid of, so you have to explore it" in a statistical sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of these unknown outcomes. "It would not surprise me if, at the end of the day, these data did not hold up under a proper sensitivity analysis," he said. "What I want to know is, among the people who had events, how differential was the follow-up, but I can tell you by just looking at it, there was a very slightly different amount of follow-up of the people in the treatment arm. But I don't know whether everyone in the treatment arm was cured and they were trekking in the Himalayas and everyone in the placebo arm went home to die. I don't know that that's not the case." Dr Maury Krantz (University of Colorado, Denver) voted in favor of approval but said he does not know how rivaroxaban would perform in general clinical practice, especially when used with aspirin and clopidogrel. "I felt very much torn by this. This isn't a simple paradigm shift. It means going to triple therapy, which is really a three-headed monster in many ways. I think that what you're going to see in practice, if this is not done carefully with the proper labeling and secondary studies, is really dramatic magnification of bleeding and perhaps minimization of the efficacy benefit."

May 23, 2012   (Updated May 24, 2012)  (Silver Spring, Maryland)  —  The missing data issues plaguing the  ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51   trial of the factor Xa inhibitor  rivaroxaban  (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the  FDA  Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting , the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus  clopidogrel , or  ticlopidine . Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the  ATLAS ACS TIMI 46   phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the ri...

Antidepressants Linked to Higher Diabetes Risk in Kids

Pediatric patients who use antidepressants may have an elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, the authors of a new study report. In a retrospective cohort study of more than 119,000 youths 5 to 20 years of age, the risk for incident type 2 diabetes was nearly twice as high among current users of certain types of antidepressants as among former users, Mehmet Burcu, PhD, and colleagues report in an article  published online October 16 in  JAMA Pediatrics . The risk intensified with increasing duration of use, greater cumulative doses, and higher daily doses of these antidepressants. The findings point to a growing need for closer monitoring of these products, including greater balancing of risks and benefits, in the pediatric population, the authors caution. They undertook the study because, despite growing evidence of an association between antidepressant use and an increased risk for type 2 diabetes in adults, similar research in pediatric patients was scarce. "To our know...