Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Electronic Health Record Usability, Satisfaction, and Burnout for Family Physicians

      research-article
      , PhD, MHI 1 , , , PharmD, PhD 2 , , PhD 1 , , PhD, MPP 3 , , MD, MPH 2 , , MD, MBA, MSc 1 , , MD, MSPH 2 , , PhD 1
      JAMA Network Open
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          How is the usability of different electronic health record (EHR) functions associated with physicians’ overall satisfaction with their EHR?

          Findings

          This survey study of 2067 family physicians found that there was significant variation in usability across EHR functions, with alerts receiving the lowest score. Greater usability was associated with higher EHR satisfaction, and efficiency strategies were associated with improved satisfaction only for physicians with highly usable EHRs.

          Meaning

          This study suggests that overall EHR usability and satisfaction vary greatly and that the benefits of EHR efficiency strategies are likely to be heterogenous across physicians depending on the usability of their EHR.

          Abstract

          Importance

          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.

          Objectives

          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.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          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.

          Exposure

          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.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          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.”

          Results

          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.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          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.

          Abstract

          This survey study measures physician satisfaction with their electronic health record and its usability and evaluates the association of electronic health record usability with satisfaction and burnout, as well as the moderating association of electronic health record efficiency strategies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Changes in Burnout and Satisfaction With Work-Life Balance in Physicians and the General US Working Population Between 2011 and 2014.

          To evaluate the prevalence of burnout and satisfaction with work-life balance in physicians and US workers in 2014 relative to 2011.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Estimating the Attributable Cost of Physician Burnout in the United States

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Concurrent validity of single-item measures of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization in burnout assessment.

              Burnout is a common problem among physicians and physicians-in-training. The Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) is the gold standard for burnout assessment, but the length of this well-validated 22-item instrument can limit its feasibility for survey research. To evaluate the concurrent validity of two questions relative to the full MBI for measuring the association of burnout with published outcomes. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, AND MAIN MEASURES: The single questions "I feel burned out from my work" and "I have become more callous toward people since I took this job," representing the emotional exhaustion and depersonalization domains of burnout, respectively, were evaluated in published studies of medical students, internal medicine residents, and practicing surgeons. We compared predictive models for the association of each question, versus the full MBI, using longitudinal data on burnout and suicidality from 2006 and 2007 for 858 medical students at five United States medical schools, cross-sectional data on burnout and serious thoughts of dropping out of medical school from 2007 for 2222 medical students at seven United States medical schools, and cross-sectional data on burnout and unprofessional attitudes and behaviors from 2009 for 2566 medical students at seven United States medical schools. We also assessed results for longitudinal data on burnout and perceived major medical errors from 2003 to 2009 for 321 Mayo Clinic Rochester internal medicine residents and cross-sectional data on burnout and both perceived major medical errors and suicidality from 2008 for 7,905 respondents to a national survey of members of the American College of Surgeons. Point estimates of effect for models based on the single-item measures were uniformly consistent with those reported for models based on the full MBI. The single-item measures of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization exhibited strong associations with each published outcome (all p ≤ 0.008). No conclusion regarding the relationship between burnout and any outcome variable was altered by the use of the single-item measures rather than the full MBI. Relative to the full MBI, single-item measures of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization exhibit strong and consistent associations with key outcomes in medical students, internal medicine residents, and practicing surgeons.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                29 August 2024
                August 2024
                29 August 2024
                : 7
                : 8
                : e2426956
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Clinical Informatics and Digital Transformation, University of California, San Francisco
                [2 ]American Board of Family Medicine, Center for Professionalism and Value in Health Care, Washington, DC
                [3 ]Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: June 13, 2024.
                Published: August 29, 2024. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.26956
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2024 Holmgren AJ et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: A. Jay Holmgren, PhD, MHI, Division of Clinical Informatics and Digital Transformation, University of California, San Francisco, 10 Koret Way, Office 327A, San Francisco, CA 94131 ( a.holmgren@ 123456ucsf.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Holmgren had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Holmgren, Hendrix, Bazemore, Rotenstein, Phillips, Adler-Milstein.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Holmgren, Hendrix, Maisel, Everson, Bazemore, Phillips, Adler-Milstein.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Holmgren, Phillips.
                Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Holmgren, Hendrix, Everson.
                Obtained funding: Phillips.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Maisel, Bazemore, Rotenstein.
                Supervision: Bazemore, Adler-Milstein.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Holmgren reported receiving grants from the American Medical Association, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, and the California Health Care Foundation outside the submitted work. Dr Maisel reported receiving grants from the American Board of Family Medicine during the conduct of the study. Dr Bazemore reported working for the American Board of Family Medicine and its Center for Professionalism & Value in Healthcare, which have longitudinal interests in improving user experience with health information technology and interoperability as a matter of enhancing the professional work environment for our diplomates. Dr Rotenstein reported receiving grants from the American Medical Association, FeelBetter Inc, and the Physicians Foundation and personal fees from Phreesia Inc and serving on the advisory board for Augmedix AI outside the submitted work. Dr Adler-Milstein reported serving on the AI Advisory Council and holding shares in Augmedix AI. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This project was funded by US Department of Health and Human Services Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology cooperative agreement 90AX0032/01-02.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2.
                Article
                zoi240836
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.26956
                11362862
                39207759
                97fb30d7-0d2f-4057-bfe4-2251977c0068
                Copyright 2024 Holmgren AJ et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 29 February 2024
                : 13 June 2024
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Health Informatics

                Comments

                Comment on this article