OBJECTIVE: Understand the perceived role of electronic health records (EHR) and workflow fragmentation on clinician documentation burden in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: From February to June 2022, we conducted semistructured interviews among a national sample of US prescribing providers and registered nurses who actively practice in the adult ED setting and use Epic Systems' EHR. We recruited participants through professional listservs, social media, and email invitations sent to healthcare professionals. We analyzed interview transcripts using inductive thematic analysis and interviewed participants until we achieved thematic saturation. We finalized themes through a consensus-building process. RESULTS: We conducted interviews with 12 prescribing providers and 12 registered nurses. Six themes were identified related to EHR factors perceived to contribute to documentation burden including lack of advanced EHR capabilities, absence of EHR optimization for clinicians, poor user interface design, hindered communication, increased manual work, and added workflow blockages, and five themes associated with cognitive load. Two themes emerged in the relationship between workflow fragmentation and EHR documentation burden: underlying sources and adverse consequences. DISCUSSION: Obtaining further stakeholder input and consensus is essential to determine whether these perceived burdensome EHR factors could be extended to broader contexts and addressed through optimizing existing EHR systems alone or through a broad overhaul of the EHR's architecture and primary purpose. CONCLUSION: While most clinicians perceived that the EHR added value to patient care and care quality, our findings underscore the importance of designing EHRs that are in harmony with ED clinical workflows to alleviate the clinician documentation burden.

BACKGROUND: . OBJECTIVE: Electronic health records (EHRs) are linked with documentation burden resulting in clinician burnout. While clear classifications and validated measures of burnout exist, documentation burden remains ill-defined and inconsistently measured. We aim to conduct a scoping review focused on identifying approaches to documentation burden measurement and their characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews (ScR) guidelines, we conducted a scoping review assessing MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL from inception to April 2020 for studies investigating documentation burden among physicians and nurses in ambulatory or inpatient settings. Two reviewers evaluated each potentially relevant study for inclusion/exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Of the 3482 articles retrieved, 35 studies met inclusion criteria. We identified 15 measurement characteristics, including 7 effort constructs: EHR usage and workload, clinical documentation/review, EHR work after hours and remotely, administrative tasks, cognitively cumbersome work, fragmentation of workflow, and patient interaction. We uncovered 4 time constructs: average time, proportion of time, timeliness of completion, activity rate, and 11 units of analysis. Only 45.0% of studies assessed the impact of EHRs on clinicians and/or patients and 40.0% mentioned clinician burnout. DISCUSSION: Standard and validated measures of documentation burden are lacking. While time and effort were the core concepts measured, there appears to be no consensus on the best approach nor degree of rigor to study documentation burden. CONCLUSION: Further research is needed to reliably operationalize the concept of documentation burden, explore best practices for measurement, and standardize its use.

OBJECTIVE: The study sought to describe the prevalence and nature of clinical expert involvement in the development, evaluation, and implementation of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) that utilize machine learning to analyze electronic health record data to assist nurses and physicians in prognostic and treatment decision making (ie, predictive CDSSs) in the hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, and IEEE Xplore and hand-searching of relevant conference proceedings were conducted to identify eligible articles. Empirical studies of predictive CDSSs using electronic health record data for nurses or physicians in the hospital setting published in the last 5 years in peer-reviewed journals or conference proceedings were eligible for synthesis. Data from eligible studies regarding clinician involvement, stage in system design, predictive CDSS intention, and target clinician were charted and summarized. RESULTS: Eighty studies met eligibility criteria. Clinical expert involvement was most prevalent at the beginning and late stages of system design. Most articles (95%) described developing and evaluating machine learning models, 28% of which described involving clinical experts, with nearly half functioning to verify the clinical correctness or relevance of the model (47%). DISCUSSION: Involvement of clinical experts in predictive CDSS design should be explicitly reported in publications and evaluated for the potential to overcome predictive CDSS adoption challenges. CONCLUSIONS: If present, clinical expert involvement is most prevalent when predictive CDSS specifications are made or when system implementations are evaluated. However, clinical experts are less prevalent in developmental stages to verify clinical correctness, select model features, preprocess data, or serve as a gold standard.

Dear JAMIA Editors and Readers: We appreciate the critiques that Dr. Sendak and colleagues have brought forward regarding our scoping review of clinician involvement in predictive CDSS design.1 In their letter, Sendak and colleagues argue that our review too narrowly defined clinician involvement and that relationships established between clinician leaders, often coauthors on manuscripts, and other research team members is a valuable form of clinician involvement not adequately captured in our review.2 We recognize and agree that we should have more prominently highlighted the possibility that clinically affiliated coauthors’ contributions may have represented clinician involvement in one of the ways we charted or in a different relationship-oriented way that is also important for predictive CDSS success. We also should have consistently referred to our results finding that involvement is not widely reported instead of not widely practiced. We also acknowledge that reaching out to authors to gather...

been corrected from " [25][26][27][28]30