We have located links that may give you full text access.
Duly noted: Lessons from a two-site intervention to assess and improve the quality of clinical documentation in the electronic health record.
Applied Clinical Informatics 2016 July 7
BACKGROUND: Communication errors are identified as a root cause contributing to a majority of sentinel events. The clinical note is a cornerstone of physician communication, yet there are few published interventions on teaching note writing in the electronic health record (EHR). This is a prospective, two-site, quality improvement project to assess and improve the quality of clinical documentation in the EHR using a validated assessment tool.
METHODS: Internal Medicine (IM) residents at the University of Kentucky College of Medicine (UK) and Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine (MMC) received one of two interventions during an inpatient ward month: either a lecture, or a lecture and individual feedback on progress notes. A third group of residents in each program served as control. Notes were evaluated with the Physician Documentation Quality Instrument 9 (PDQI-9).
RESULTS: Due to a significant difference in baseline PDQI-9 scores at MMC, the sites were not combined. Of 75 residents at the UK site, 22 were eligible, 20 (91%) enrolled, 76 notes in total were scored. Of 156 residents at MMC, 22 were eligible, 18 (82%) enrolled, 40 notes in total were scored. Note quality did not improve as measured by the PDQI-9.
CONCLUSION: This educational quality improvement project did not improve the quality of clinical documentation as measured by the PDQI-9. This project underscores the difficulty in improving note quality. Further efforts should explore more effective educational tools to improve the quality of clinical documentation in the EHR.
METHODS: Internal Medicine (IM) residents at the University of Kentucky College of Medicine (UK) and Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine (MMC) received one of two interventions during an inpatient ward month: either a lecture, or a lecture and individual feedback on progress notes. A third group of residents in each program served as control. Notes were evaluated with the Physician Documentation Quality Instrument 9 (PDQI-9).
RESULTS: Due to a significant difference in baseline PDQI-9 scores at MMC, the sites were not combined. Of 75 residents at the UK site, 22 were eligible, 20 (91%) enrolled, 76 notes in total were scored. Of 156 residents at MMC, 22 were eligible, 18 (82%) enrolled, 40 notes in total were scored. Note quality did not improve as measured by the PDQI-9.
CONCLUSION: This educational quality improvement project did not improve the quality of clinical documentation as measured by the PDQI-9. This project underscores the difficulty in improving note quality. Further efforts should explore more effective educational tools to improve the quality of clinical documentation in the EHR.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app