Electronic Health Record Usability, Satisfaction, and Burnout for Family Physicians.
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Aug 2024
01 Aug 2024
Historique:
medline:
1
9
2024
pubmed:
1
9
2024
entrez:
29
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Electronic health record (EHR) work has been associated with decreased physician well-being. Understanding the association between EHR usability and physician satisfaction and burnout, and whether team and technology strategies moderate this association, is critical to informing efforts to address EHR-associated physician burnout. To measure family physician satisfaction with their EHR and EHR usability across functions and evaluate the association of EHR usability with satisfaction and burnout, as well as the moderating association of 4 team and technology EHR efficiency strategies. This study uses data from a cross-sectional survey conducted from December 12, 2021, to October 17, 2022, of all family physicians seeking American Board of Family Medicine recertification in 2022. Physicians perceived EHR usability across 6 domains, as well as adoption of 4 EHR efficiency strategies: scribes, support from other staff, templated text, and voice recognition or transcription. Physician EHR satisfaction and frequency of experiencing burnout measured with a single survey item ("I feel burned out from my work"), with answers ranging from "never" to "every day." Of the 2067 physicians (1246 [60.3%] younger than 50 years; 1051 men [50.9%]; and 1729 [86.0%] practicing in an urban area) who responded to the survey, 562 (27.2%) were very satisfied and 775 (37.5%) were somewhat satisfied, while 346 (16.7%) were somewhat dissatisfied and 198 (9.6%) were very dissatisfied with their EHR. Readability of information had the highest usability, with 543 physicians (26.3%) rating it as excellent, while usefulness of alerts had the lowest usability, with 262 physicians (12.7%) rating it as excellent. In multivariable models, good or excellent usability for entering data (β = 0.09 [95% CI, 0.05-0.14]; P < .001), alignment with workflow processes (β = 0.11 [95% CI, 0.06-0.16]; P < .001), ease of finding information (β = 0.14 [95% CI, 0.09-0.19]; P < .001), and usefulness of alerts (β = 0.11 [95% CI, 0.06-0.16]; P < .001) were associated with physicians being very satisfied with their EHR. In addition, being very satisfied with the EHR was associated with reduced frequency of burnout (β = -0.64 [95% CI, -1.06 to -0.22]; P < .001). In moderation analysis, only physicians with highly usable EHRs saw improvements in satisfaction from adopting efficiency strategies. In this survey study of physician EHR usability and satisfaction, approximately one-fourth of family physicians reported being very satisfied with their EHR, while another one-fourth reported being somewhat or very dissatisfied, a concerning finding amplified by the inverse association between EHR satisfaction and burnout. Electronic health record-based alerts had the lowest reported usability, suggesting EHR vendors should focus their efforts on improving alerts. Electronic health record efficiency strategies were broadly adopted, but only physicians with highly usable EHRs realized gains in EHR satisfaction from using these strategies, suggesting that EHR burden-reduction interventions are likely to have heterogenous associations across physicians with different EHRs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39207759
pii: 2822959
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.26956
pmc: PMC11362862
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2426956Références
JAMA Intern Med. 2022 May 1;182(5):564-566
pubmed: 35344006
Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jun 4;170(11):784-790
pubmed: 31132791
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Jun 1;3(6):e207374
pubmed: 32568397
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 Apr 1;27(4):531-538
pubmed: 32016375
Health Aff (Millwood). 2017 Apr 1;36(4):655-662
pubmed: 28373331
J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Nov;27(11):1445-52
pubmed: 22362127
Ann Intern Med. 2022 Apr;175(4):499-504
pubmed: 35188791
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Jul 3;169(1):50-51
pubmed: 29801050
JAMA Intern Med. 2021 Feb 1;181(2):251-259
pubmed: 33315048
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017 Apr 10;17(1):36
pubmed: 28395667
J Gen Intern Med. 2023 Apr;38(5):1119-1126
pubmed: 36418647
Health Aff (Millwood). 2017 Aug 1;36(8):1416-1422
pubmed: 28784734
JAMA Intern Med. 2021 Jun 1;181(6):863-865
pubmed: 33749732
Ann Intern Med. 2020 Feb 4;172(3):169-174
pubmed: 31931523
BMJ Qual Saf. 2020 Jan;29(1):52-59
pubmed: 31320497
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022 May 11;29(6):1050-1059
pubmed: 35244165
Fam Med. 2024 Mar;56(3):148-155
pubmed: 38241747
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 May 1;3(5):e205547
pubmed: 32469412
Mayo Clin Proc. 2015 Dec;90(12):1600-13
pubmed: 26653297
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007 Jan-Feb;14(1):29-40
pubmed: 17068355
Appl Clin Inform. 2021 Jan;12(1):153-163
pubmed: 33657634
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 Aug 1;27(8):1252-1258
pubmed: 32620948
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021 Aug 13;28(9):1947-1954
pubmed: 34198342
Health Serv Res. 2023 Jun;58(3):674-685
pubmed: 36342001
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019 Feb 1;26(2):106-114
pubmed: 30517663
JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Nov 1;178(11):1467-1472
pubmed: 30242380
Health Serv Res. 2024 Aug;59(4):e14337
pubmed: 38822737
Health Aff (Millwood). 2018 Nov;37(11):1736-1743
pubmed: 30395508
Ann Fam Med. 2017 Sep;15(5):427-433
pubmed: 28893812
Pediatrics. 2013 Jun;131(6):e1970-3
pubmed: 23713099
JAMA. 2015 Sep 8;314(10):1070-1
pubmed: 26348757
Mayo Clin Proc. 2020 Mar;95(3):476-487
pubmed: 31735343