Can medical scribes improve quality measure documentation?

,; ,

Original Research

Can medical scribes improve quality measure documentation?

J Fam Pract. 2019 June;68(5):E1-E7

PDF Download

References

1. Blumenthal D. Wiring the health system—origins and provisions of a new federal program. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:2323-2329.

2. Welp A, Meier LL, Manser T. Emotional exhaustion and workload predict clinician-rated and objective patient safety. Front Psychol. 2015;5:1573.

3. Beasley JW, Wetterneck TB, Temte J, et al. Information chaos in primary care: implications for physician performance and patient safety. J Am Board Fam Med. 2011;24:745-751.

4. Sinsky CA, Beasley JW. Texting while doctoring: a patient safety hazard. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159:782-783.

5. Montague E, Asan O. Dynamic modeling of patient and physician eye gaze to understand the effects of electronic health records on doctor-patient communication and attention. Int J Med Inform. 2014;83:225-234.

6. Asan O, Montague E. Technology-mediated information sharing between patients and clinicians in primary care encounters. Behav Inf Technol. 2014;33:259-270.

7. The Joint Commission. Documentation assistance provided by scribes. https://www.jointcommission.org/standards_information/jcfaqdetails.aspx?StandardsFAQId=1908. Accessed June 4, 2019.

8. Shultz CG, Holmstrom HL. The use of medical scribes in health care settings: a systematic review and future directions. J Am Board Fam Med. 2015;28:371-381.

9. Arya R, Salovich DM, Ohman-Strickland P, et al. Impact of scribes on performance indicators in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2010;17:490-494.

10. Conn J. Getting it in writing: Docs using scribes to ease the transition to EHRs. Mod Healthc. 2010;40:30,32.

11. Koshy S, Feustel PJ, Hong M, et al. Scribes in an ambulatory urology practice: patient and physician satisfaction. J Urol. 2010;184:258-262.

12. Allen B, Banapoor B, Weeks E, et al. An assessment of emergency department throughput and provider satisfaction after the implementation of a scribe program. Adv Emerg Med. 2014. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/aem/2014/517319/. Accessed June 4, 2019.

13. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB. Validation and utility of a self-report Version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study. Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders. Patient Health Questionnaire. JAMA. 1999;282:1737-1744.

Data analysis

During chart review, we assessed the rate at which documentation was completed for 8 quality outcome measures commonly used in the primary care setting (TABLE 1), before and after the introduction of medical scribes. These quality measures and pertinent descriptors are listed in TABLE 2.¹³ Presence or absence of documentation on all quality measures was noted for all applicable patients.

One hundred fifty patients were surveyed immediately after their office visit on their perceptions of medical scribes, including their attitude toward, comfort with, and acceptance of medical scribes (TABLE 3). Five participating physicians were surveyed to assess their perceptions related to productivity and job satisfaction with the use of medical scribes (TABLE 4), and regarding time saved and additional patients seen. Those who collected and analyzed the data from the surveys were blinded to patient and physician identifiers.

Statistical analysis

Using chi-squared tests, we compared the number of positive documentations for the 8 outcome measures before and after the use of medical scribes. Two-sided P values < .05 were considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed with the use of STATA version 9 (StataCorp LP. College Station, Tex).

Physician survey data were calculated on a Likert scale, with a score of 1 corresponding to “strongly disagree,” 2 “disagree,” 3 “neither agree nor disagree,” 4 “agree,” and 5 “strongly agree.” Using the 5 answers generated from the 5 physicians, we calculated the mean for each question.

RESULTS

The use of scribes demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in the documentation of 4 (out of 8) pay-for-performance measures (TABLE 1): fall risk assessment (odds ratio [OR] = 5.5, P = .02), follow-up tobacco screen (OR = 6.4; P = .01), follow-up body mass index (BMI) plan (OR = 6.2; P < .01), and follow-up blood pressure plan (OR = 39.6; P < .01). Sample sizes of each quality measure vary as there were differing numbers of applicable patients for each quality measure within the overall 1000 charts.

Continue to: We established at the beginning...

Can medical scribes improve quality measure documentation?

References

Data analysis

Statistical analysis

RESULTS

Pages

Next Article: