Implementing Structured Clinical Templates at a Single Tertiary Hospital: Survey Study.
data entry time
electronic health records
structured clinical template
structured data entry
user experience
Journal
JMIR medical informatics
ISSN: 2291-9694
Titre abrégé: JMIR Med Inform
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101645109
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Apr 2020
30 Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
28
02
2019
accepted:
26
02
2020
revised:
26
11
2019
entrez:
1
5
2020
pubmed:
1
5
2020
medline:
1
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Electronic health record (EHR) systems have been widely adopted in hospitals. However, since current EHRs mainly focus on lowering the number of paper documents used, they have suffered from poor search function and reusability capabilities. To overcome these drawbacks, structured clinical templates have been proposed; however, they are not widely used owing to the inconvenience of data entry. This study aims to verify the usability of structured templates by comparing data entry times. A Korean tertiary hospital has implemented structured clinical templates with the modeling of clinical contents for the last 6 years. As a result, 1238 clinical content models (ie, body measurements, vital signs, and allergies) have been developed and 492 models for 13 clinical templates, including pathology reports, were applied to EHRs for clinical practice. Then, to verify the usability of the structured templates, data entry times from free-texts and four structured pathology report templates were compared using 4391 entries from structured data entry (SDE) log data and 4265 entries from free-text log data. In addition, a paper-based survey and a focus group interview were conducted with 23 participants from three different groups, including EHR developers, pathology transcriptionists, and clinical data extraction team members. Based on the analysis of time required for data entry, in most cases, beginner users of the structured clinical templates required at most 70.18% more time for data entry. However, as users became accustomed to the templates, they were able to enter data more quickly than via free-text entry: at least 1 minute and 23 seconds (16.8%) up to 5 minutes and 42 seconds (27.6%). Interestingly, well-designed thyroid cancer pathology reports required 14.54% less data entry time from the beginning of the SDE implementation. In the interviews and survey, we confirmed that most of the interviewees agreed on the need for structured templates. However, they were skeptical about structuring all the items included in the templates. The increase in initial elapsed time led users to hold a negative opinion of SDE, despite its benefits. To overcome these obstacles, it is necessary to structure the clinical templates for optimum use. In addition, user experience in terms of ease of data entry must be considered as an essential aspect in the development of structured clinical templates.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Electronic health record (EHR) systems have been widely adopted in hospitals. However, since current EHRs mainly focus on lowering the number of paper documents used, they have suffered from poor search function and reusability capabilities. To overcome these drawbacks, structured clinical templates have been proposed; however, they are not widely used owing to the inconvenience of data entry.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to verify the usability of structured templates by comparing data entry times.
METHODS
METHODS
A Korean tertiary hospital has implemented structured clinical templates with the modeling of clinical contents for the last 6 years. As a result, 1238 clinical content models (ie, body measurements, vital signs, and allergies) have been developed and 492 models for 13 clinical templates, including pathology reports, were applied to EHRs for clinical practice. Then, to verify the usability of the structured templates, data entry times from free-texts and four structured pathology report templates were compared using 4391 entries from structured data entry (SDE) log data and 4265 entries from free-text log data. In addition, a paper-based survey and a focus group interview were conducted with 23 participants from three different groups, including EHR developers, pathology transcriptionists, and clinical data extraction team members.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Based on the analysis of time required for data entry, in most cases, beginner users of the structured clinical templates required at most 70.18% more time for data entry. However, as users became accustomed to the templates, they were able to enter data more quickly than via free-text entry: at least 1 minute and 23 seconds (16.8%) up to 5 minutes and 42 seconds (27.6%). Interestingly, well-designed thyroid cancer pathology reports required 14.54% less data entry time from the beginning of the SDE implementation. In the interviews and survey, we confirmed that most of the interviewees agreed on the need for structured templates. However, they were skeptical about structuring all the items included in the templates.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The increase in initial elapsed time led users to hold a negative opinion of SDE, despite its benefits. To overcome these obstacles, it is necessary to structure the clinical templates for optimum use. In addition, user experience in terms of ease of data entry must be considered as an essential aspect in the development of structured clinical templates.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32352392
pii: v8i4e13836
doi: 10.2196/13836
pmc: PMC7226057
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e13836Informations de copyright
©Ji Eun Hwang, Byung Ook Seoung, Sang-Oh Lee, Soo-Yong Shin. Originally published in JMIR Medical Informatics (http://medinform.jmir.org), 30.04.2020.
Références
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2008;2008:1470-3
pubmed: 19162948
Future Oncol. 2016 May;12(10):1261-74
pubmed: 27096309
Int J Med Inform. 2008 May;77(5):291-304
pubmed: 17951106
Fam Pract Manag. 2007 Mar;14(3):26-30
pubmed: 17408127
AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc. 2013 Mar 18;2013:292-6
pubmed: 24303283
Int J Med Inform. 2018 Dec;120:147-156
pubmed: 30409340
J Digit Imaging. 2018 Feb;31(1):84-90
pubmed: 28808792
Int J Med Inform. 1999 Jul;55(1):47-59
pubmed: 10471240
Int J Med Inform. 2017 May;101:100-107
pubmed: 28347440
Int J Med Inform. 1997 Aug;46(1):7-29
pubmed: 9476152
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Dec;203(6):1265-71
pubmed: 25415704
Acad Radiol. 2018 Jan;25(1):66-73
pubmed: 29030284
JAMA Oncol. 2016 Jun 1;2(6):797-804
pubmed: 27124593
Front Neurol. 2018 Feb 06;9:32
pubmed: 29467712
Drug Saf. 2017 Nov;40(11):1075-1089
pubmed: 28643174
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2017 Feb 10;2016:1119-1128
pubmed: 28269909
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018 Aug;39(8):1406-1414
pubmed: 29903922
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2010;160(Pt 1):161-5
pubmed: 20841670
J Digit Imaging. 2014 Oct;27(5):588-93
pubmed: 24865860
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016 Mar;23(2):248-56
pubmed: 26568604
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Sep;205(3):584-8
pubmed: 26295645
J Am Coll Radiol. 2018 May;15(5):749-754
pubmed: 29506919
BMJ Open. 2019 Apr 1;9(4):e023232
pubmed: 30940752
Yearb Med Inform. 2017 Aug;26(1):214-227
pubmed: 29063568
Int J Med Inform. 2018 Apr;112:149-157
pubmed: 29500013
J Digit Imaging. 2018 Apr;31(2):185-192
pubmed: 29086081
J Biomed Inform. 2011 Dec;44(6):1056-67
pubmed: 21867774
Am J Emerg Med. 2002 Mar;20(2):118-21
pubmed: 11880878
Eur Radiol. 2018 Jan;28(1):308-315
pubmed: 28755055
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2017 Feb 10;2016:753-762
pubmed: 28269871
Radiology. 2008 Dec;249(3):739-47
pubmed: 19011178
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2001;84(Pt 1):609-13
pubmed: 11604809
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004 Jan-Feb;11(1):78-86
pubmed: 14527973