The clinical problem list is an important tool for clinical decision making, quality measurement and clinical decision support; however, problem lists are often incomplete and provider attitudes towards the problem list are poorly understood. An ethnographic study of healthcare providers conducted from April 2009 to January 2010 was carried out among academic and community outpatient medical practices in the Greater Boston area across a wide range of medical and surgical specialties. Attitudes towards the problem list were then analyzed using grounded theory methods. Attitudes were variable, and dimensions of variations fit into nine themes: workflow, ownership and responsibility, relevance, uses, content, presentation, accuracy, alternatives, support/education and one cross-cutting theme of culture. Significant variation was observed in clinician attitudes towards and use of the electronic patient problem list. Clearer guidance and best practices for problem list utilization are needed.

/pdf/clinician-attitudes-toward-and-use-of-electronic-problem-dwgqebvicv.pdf

Clinician attitudes toward and use of electronic problem lists: a thematic analysis.

Accurate patient problem lists are valuable tools for improving the quality of care, enabling clinical decision support, and facilitating research and quality measurement. However, problem lists are frequently inaccurate and out-of-date and use varies widely across providers. Our goal was to assess provider use of an electronic problem list and identify differences in usage between medical specialties. Chart review of a random sample of 100,000 patients who had received care in the past two years at a Boston-based academic medical center. Counts were collected of all notes and problems added for each patient from 1/1/2002 to 4/30/2010. For each entry, the recording provider and the clinic in which the entry was recorded was collected. We used the Healthcare Provider Taxonomy Code Set to categorize each clinic by specialty. We analyzed the problem list use across specialties, controlling for note volume as a proxy for visits. A total of 2,264,051 notes and 158,105 problems were recorded in the electronic medical record for this population during the study period. Primary care providers added 82.3% of all problems, despite writing only 40.4% of all notes. Of all patients, 49.1% had an assigned primary care provider (PCP) affiliated with the hospital; patients with a PCP had an average of 4.7 documented problems compared to 1.5 problems for patients without a PCP. Primary care providers were responsible for the majority of problem documentation; surgical and medical specialists and subspecialists recorded a disproportionately small number of problems on the problem list.

Use of an Electronic Problem List by Primary Care Providers and Specialists

The organizational structure of medical record departments in Iran is not appropriate for the efficient management of healthcare information. In addition, there is no strong information management division to provide comprehensive information management services in hospitals in Iran. Therefore, a suggested model was designed based on four main axes: 1) specifications of a Health Information Management Division, 2) specifications of a Healthcare Information Management Department, 3) the functions of the Healthcare Information Management Department, and 4) the units of the Healthcare Information Management Department. The validity of the model was determined through use of the Delphi technique. The results of the validation process show that the majority of experts agree with the model and consider it to be appropriate and applicable for hospitals in Iran. The model is therefore recommended for hospitals in Iran.

A new model for the organizational structure of medical record departments in hospitals in Iran.

The problem list is a critical component of the electronic medical record, with implications for clinical care, provider communication, clinical decision support, quality measurement and research. However, many of its benefits depend on the use of coded terminologies. Two standard terminologies (ICD-9 and SNOMED-CT) are available for problem documentation, and two SNOMED-CT subsets (VA/KP and CORE) are available for SNOMED-CT users. We set out to examine these subsets, characterize their overlap and measure their coverage. We applied the subsets to a random sample of 100,000 records from Brigham and Women’s Hospital to determine the proportion of problems covered. Though CORE is smaller (5,814 terms vs. 17,761 terms for VA/KP), 94.8% of coded problem entries from BWH were in the CORE subset, while only 84.0% of entries had matches in VA/KP (p<0.001). Though both subsets had reasonable coverage, CORE was superior in our sample, and had fewer clinically significant gaps.

Comparative analysis of the VA/Kaiser and NLM CORE problem subsets: an empirical study based on problem frequency.

Effect of implementation of a coded problem list entry subsystem

Best practices for problem lists in an EHR.

The EHR's impact on HIM functions.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Maribeth Hernan

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Best practices for problem lists in an EHR.

The EHR's impact on HIM functions.