↓ Skip to main content

Patient Perceptions of Electronic Medical Record Use by Faculty and Resident Physicians: A Mixed Methods Study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
21 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
158 Mendeley
Title
Patient Perceptions of Electronic Medical Record Use by Faculty and Resident Physicians: A Mixed Methods Study
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11606-016-3774-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wei Wei Lee, Maria A. Alkureishi, Obioma Ukabiala, Laura Ruth Venable, Samantha S. Ngooi, Daina D. Staisiunas, Kristen E. Wroblewski, Vineet M. Arora

Abstract

While concerns remain regarding Electronic Medical Records (EMR) use impeding doctor-patient communication, resident and faculty patient perspectives post-widespread EMR adoption remain largely unexplored. We aimed to describe patient perspectives of outpatient resident and faculty EMR use and identify positive and negative EMR use examples to promote optimal utilization. This was a prospective mixed-methods study. Internal medicine faculty and resident patients at the University of Chicago's primary care clinic participated in the study. In 2013, one year after EMR implementation, telephone interviews were conducted with patients using open-ended and Likert style questions to elicit positive and negative perceptions of EMR use by physicians. Interview transcripts were analyzed qualitatively to develop a coding classification. Satisfaction with physician EMR use was examined using bivariate statistics. In total, 108 interviews were completed and analyzed. Two major themes were noted: (1) Clinical Functions of EMR and (2) Communication Functions of EMR; as well as six subthemes: (1a) Clinical Care (i.e., clinical efficiency), (1b) Documentation (i.e., proper record keeping and access), (1c) Information Access, (1d) Educational Resource, (2a) Patient Engagement and (2b) Physical Focus (i.e., body positioning). Overall, 85 % (979/1154) of patient perceptions of EMR use were positive, with the majority within the "Clinical Care" subtheme (n = 218). Of negative perceptions, 66 % (115/175) related to the "Communication Functions" theme, and the majority of those related to the "Physical Focus" subtheme (n = 71). The majority of patients (90 %, 95/106) were satisfied with physician EMR use: 59 % (63/107) reported the computer had a positive effect on their relationship and only 7 % (8/108) reported the EMR made it harder to talk with their doctors. Despite concerns regarding EMRs impeding doctor-patient communication, patients reported largely positive perceptions of the EMR with many patients reporting high levels of satisfaction. Future work should focus on improving doctors "physical focus" when using the EMR to redirect towards the patient.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 155 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 18%
Researcher 15 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Student > Postgraduate 8 5%
Other 35 22%
Unknown 49 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 11%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Computer Science 7 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 4%
Other 22 14%
Unknown 57 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 December 2016.
All research outputs
#1,544,996
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,231
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,410
of 359,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#15
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 359,617 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.