Association of Electronic Health Record Design and Use Factors With Clinician Stress and Burnout.
Adaptation, Psychological
Adult
Ambulatory Care
/ organization & administration
Burnout, Professional
/ diagnosis
Cross-Sectional Studies
Electronic Health Records
/ organization & administration
Female
Focus Groups
Health Surveys
Humans
Linear Models
Logistic Models
Male
Middle Aged
Nurse Practitioners
/ organization & administration
Physician Assistants
/ organization & administration
Physicians, Primary Care
/ organization & administration
Primary Health Care
/ organization & administration
Risk Factors
Workload
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 08 2019
02 08 2019
Historique:
entrez:
17
8
2019
pubmed:
17
8
2019
medline:
17
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Many believe a major cause of the epidemic of clinician burnout is poorly designed electronic health records (EHRs). To determine which EHR design and use factors are associated with clinician stress and burnout and to identify other sources that contribute to this problem. This survey study of 282 ambulatory primary care and subspecialty clinicians from 3 institutions measured stress and burnout, opinions on EHR design and use factors, and helpful coping strategies. Linear and logistic regressions were used to estimate associations of work conditions with stress on a continuous scale and burnout as a binary outcome from an ordered categorical scale. The survey was conducted between August 2016 and July 2017, with data analyzed from January 2019 to May 2019. Clinician stress and burnout as measured with validated questions, the EHR design and use factors identified by clinicians as most associated with stress and burnout, and measures of clinician working conditions. Of 640 clinicians, 282 (44.1%) responded. Of these, 241 (85.5%) were physicians, 160 (56.7%) were women, and 193 (68.4%) worked in primary care. The most prevalent concerns about EHR design and use were excessive data entry requirements (245 [86.9%]), long cut-and-pasted notes (212 [75.2%]), inaccessibility of information from multiple institutions (206 [73.1%]), notes geared toward billing (206 [73.1%]), interference with work-life balance (178 [63.1%]), and problems with posture (144 [51.1%]) and pain (134 [47.5%]) attributed to the use of EHRs. Overall, EHR design and use factors accounted for 12.5% of variance in measures of stress and 6.8% of variance in measures of burnout. Work conditions, including EHR use and design factors, accounted for 58.1% of variance in stress; key work conditions were office atmospheres (β̂ = 1.26; P < .001), control of workload (for optimal control: β̂ = -7.86; P < .001), and physical symptoms attributed to EHR use (β̂ = 1.29; P < .001). Work conditions accounted for 36.2% of variance in burnout, where challenges included chaos (adjusted odds ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.10-1.75; P = .006) and physical symptoms perceived to be from EHR use (adjusted odds ratio, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.48-2.74; P < .001). Coping strategies were associated with only 2.4% of the variability in stress and 1.7% of the variability in burnout. Although EHR design and use factors are associated with clinician stress and burnout, other challenges, such as chaotic clinic atmospheres and workload control, explain considerably more of the variance in these adverse clinician outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31418810
pii: 2748054
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.9609
pmc: PMC6704736
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e199609Subventions
Organisme : AHRQ HHS
ID : R18 HS022065
Pays : United States
Références
N Engl J Med. 1999 Jul 29;341(5):365-7
pubmed: 10423474
Med Care. 1999 Nov;37(11):1140-54
pubmed: 10549616
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Jul 7;151(1):28-36, W6-9
pubmed: 19581644
BMC Psychiatry. 2010 Jan 08;10:3
pubmed: 20064210
Cogn Technol Work. 2011 Mar;13(1):11-29
pubmed: 21479125
J Am Board Fam Med. 2011 Nov-Dec;24(6):745-51
pubmed: 22086819
ED Manag. 2013 Mar;25(3):31-2
pubmed: 23479815
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 Feb;21(e1):e100-6
pubmed: 24005796
Ann Intern Med. 2014 May 20;160(10):727-8
pubmed: 24842418
J Gen Intern Med. 2015 Aug;30(8):1105-11
pubmed: 25724571
Hum Factors. 2015 Aug;57(5):805-34
pubmed: 25850118
J Healthc Qual. 2017 Jan/Feb;39(1):43-53
pubmed: 26566238
J Gen Intern Med. 2016 May;31(5):548-60
pubmed: 26786877
J Fam Pract. 2016 Mar;65(3):155-9
pubmed: 27158687
Mayo Clin Proc. 2016 Jul;91(7):836-48
pubmed: 27313121
J Gen Intern Med. 2017 Jan;32(1):56-61
pubmed: 27612486
Rand Health Q. 2014 Dec 1;3(4):1
pubmed: 28083306
Acad Med. 2018 Mar;93(3):367-370
pubmed: 28817432
Ann Fam Med. 2017 Sep;15(5):427-433
pubmed: 28893812
J Am Board Fam Med. 2017 Nov-Dec;30(6):724-732
pubmed: 29180547
JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Jun 1;178(6):741-742
pubmed: 29582080
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Jul 3;169(1):50-51
pubmed: 29801050
J Gen Intern Med. 2018 Aug;33(8):1344-1351
pubmed: 29869142
J Fam Pract. 2018 Aug;67(8):E1-E8
pubmed: 30110501
JAMA. 2018 Sep 18;320(11):1109-1110
pubmed: 30422283
N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 24;380(4):305-307
pubmed: 30673554
Mayo Clin Proc. 2019 Sep;94(9):1681-1694
pubmed: 30803733
JAMIA Open. 2018 Jul;1(1):49-56
pubmed: 31093606
J Appl Psychol. 1986 Nov;71(4):618-29
pubmed: 3804934
N Engl J Med. 1998 Dec 3;339(23):1705-8
pubmed: 9834312