PDF herunterladen
Appl Clin Inform 2021; 12(02): 329-339
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1728699
Review Article

Multidisciplinary Sprint Program Achieved Specialty-Specific EHR Optimization in 20 Clinics

Amber Sieja
1   Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, United States
,
Eric Kim
2   Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, United States
,
Heather Holmstrom
2   Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, United States
,
Stephen Rotholz
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, United States
,
Chen Tan Lin
1   Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, United States
,
Christine Gonzalez
4   University of Colorado Health, Aurora, Colorado, United States
,
Cortney Arellano
4   University of Colorado Health, Aurora, Colorado, United States
,
Sarah Hutchings
4   University of Colorado Health, Aurora, Colorado, United States
,
Denise Henderson
4   University of Colorado Health, Aurora, Colorado, United States
,
Katie Markley
5   University of Colorado Health Medical Group and University of Colorado Health, Aurora, Colorado, United States
› Institutsangaben Funding None.
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective The objective of the study was to highlight and analyze the outcomes of software configuration requests received from Sprint, a comprehensive, clinic-centered electronic health record (EHR) optimization program.

Methods A retrospective review of 1,254 Sprint workbook requests identified (1) the responsible EHR team, (2) the clinical efficiency gained from the request, and (3) the EHR intervention conducted.

Results Requests were received from 407 clinicians and 538 staff over 31 weeks of Sprint. Sixty-nine percent of the requests were completed during the Sprint. Of all requests, 25% required net new build, 73% required technical investigation and/or solutions, and 2% of the requests were escalated to the vendor. The clinical specialty groups requested a higher percentage of items that earned them clinical review (16 vs. 10%) and documentation (29 vs. 23%) efficiencies compared with their primary care colleagues who requested slightly more order modifications (22 vs. 20%). Clinical efficiencies most commonly associated with workbook requests included documentation (28%), ordering (20%), in basket (17%), and clinical review (15%). Sprint user requests evaluated by ambulatory, hardware, security, and training teams comprised 80% of reported items.

Discussion Sprint requests were categorized as clean-up, break-fix, workflow investigation, or new build. On-site collaboration with clinical care teams permitted consensus-building, drove vetting, and iteration of EHR build, and led to goal-driven, usable workflows and EHR products.

Conclusion This program evaluation demonstrates the process by which optimization can occur and the products that result when we adhere to optimization principles in health care organizations.

Keywords

burnout - electronic medical record - electronic health record - training - optimization

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

The Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board reviewed this study which qualified as exempt. No human subjects were involved in this study.




Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 20. Dezember 2020

Angenommen: 03. März 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
21. April 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Berg S. Physician burnout: it's not you, it's your medical specialty. 2018 . Accessed April 2021 at: https://www.ama-assn.org/residents-students/specialty-profiles/physician-burnout-it-s-not-you-it-s-your-medical-specialty
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Melnick ER, Dyrbye LN, Sinsky CA. et al. The association between perceived electronic health record usability and professional burnout among US physicians. Mayo Clin Proc 2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bodenheimer T, Sinsky C. From triple to quadruple aim: care of the patient requires care of the provider. Ann Fam Med 2014; 12 (06) 573-576
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Dillon EC, Tai-Seale M, Meehan A. et al. frontline perspectives on physician burnout and strategies to improve well-being: interviews with physicians and health system leaders. J Gen Intern Med 2020; 35 (01) 261-267
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Gardner RL, Cooper E, Haskell J. et al. Physician stress and burnout: the impact of health information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019; 26 (02) 106-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Panagioti M, Geraghty K, Johnson J. et al. Association between physician burnout and patient safety, professionalism and patient satisfaction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med 2018; 178 (10) 1317-1331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Shanafelt TD, Dyrbye LN, Sinsky C. et al. Relationship between clerical burden and characteristics of the electronic environment with physician burnout and professional satisfaction. Mayo Clin Proc 2016; 91 (07) 836-848
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Sinsky C, Colligan L, Li L. et al. Allocation of physician time in ambulatory practice: a time and motion study in 4 specialties. Ann Intern Med 2016; 165 (11) 753-760
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Tai-Seale M, Olson CW, Li J. et al. Electronic health record logs indicate that physicians split time evenly between seeing patients and desktop medicine. Health Aff (Millwood) 2017; 36 (04) 655-662
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Young RA, Burge SK, Kumar KA, Wilson JM, Ortiz DF. A time-motion study of primary care physicians' work in the electronic health record era. Fam Med 2018; 50 (02) 91-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Oshiro B. 6 proven strategies for engaging physicians- and 4 ways to fail. 2015 . Accessed January 2020 at: https://www.healthcatalyst.com/proven-physician-engagement-strategies
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Pandhi N, Yang WL, Karp Z. et al. Approaches and challenges to optimising primary care teams' electronic health record usage. Inform Prim Care 2014; 21 (03) 142-151
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Belden J, Grayson R, Barnes J. Defining and Testing EMR Usability: Principles and Proposed Methods of EMR Usability Evaluation and Rating. Chicago, IL: HIMMS Usability Task Force; 2009. . Accessed April 2021 at: https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/3719/DefiningTestingEMR.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Campbell EM, Sittig DF, Ash JS, Guappone KP, Dykstra RH. Types of unintended consequences related to computerized provider order entry. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13 (05) 547-556
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sittig DF, Wright A, Ash J, Singh H. New unintended adverse consequences of electronic health records. Yearb Med Inform 2016; 1 (01) 7-12
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Jamoom EW, Heisey-Grove D, Yang N, Scanlon P. Physician opinions about EHR use by EHR experience and by whether the practice had optimized it's EHR use. J Health Med Inform 2016; 7 (04) 1000240
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 McAlearney AS, Song PH, Robbins J. et al. Moving from good to great in ambulatory electronic health record implementation. J Healthc Qual 2010; 32 (05) 41-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Moon MC, Hills R, Demiris G. Understanding optimization processes of electronic health records (EHR) in select leading hospitals: a qualitative study. J Innov Health Inform 2018; 25 (02) 109-125
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Blavin F. et al. Lessons from the literature on Electronic Health Record Implementation: A Study Funded by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2013. . Accessed November 20, 2015 at: http://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/hit_lessons_learned_lit_review_final_08-01-2013.pdf
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Jones SS, Heaton PS, Rudin RS, Schneider EC. Unraveling the IT productivity paradox--lessons for health care. N Engl J Med 2012; 366 (24) 2243-2245
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ash JS, Berg M, Coiera E. Some unintended consequences of information technology in health care: the nature of patient care information system-related errors. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004; 11 (02) 104-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 DiAngi YT, Longhurst CA, Payne TH. Taming the EHR (electronic health record): there is hope. J Fam Med 2016; 3 (06) 1072
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Longhurst CA, Davis T, Maneker A. et al; Arch Collaborative. Local investment in training drives electronic health record user satisfaction. Appl Clin Inform 2019; 10 (02) 331-335
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ratwani RM, Hettinger AZ, Fairbanks RJ. The Role of Health IT Developers in Improving Patient Safety in HRO's. Washington, DC: Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology; 2014. . Accessed April 2021 at: https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/medstar_hit_safety_1_29_v2.pdf
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Leventhal R. Trend: EHR optimization. Post-implementation advancements. Leaders from various healthcare organizations explain how they have been moving forward with their EHRs following implementation. Healthc Inform 2014; 31 (02) 30-32
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Swensen S, Kabcenell A, Shanafelt T. Physician-organization collaboration reduces physician burnout and promotes engagement: the Mayo Clinic experience. J Healthc Manag 2016; 61 (02) 105-127
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Tutty MA, Carlasare LE, Lloyd S, Sinsky CA. The complex case of EHRs: examining the factors impacting the EHR user experience. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019; 26 (07) 673-677
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Sieja A, Markley K, Pell J. et al. Optimization sprints: improving clinician satisfaction and teamwork by rapidly reducing electronic health burden. Mayo Clin Proc 2019; 94 (05) 793-802
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Robinson KE, Kersey JA. Novel electronic health record (EHR) education intervention in large healthcare organization improves quality, efficiency, time, and impact on burnout. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018; 97 (38) e12319
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Stevens LA, DiAngi YT, Schremp JD. et al. Designing an individualized EHR learning plan for providers. Appl Clin Inform 2017; 8 (03) 924-935
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Kadish SS, Mayer EL, Jackman DM. et al. Implementation to optimization: a tailored, data-driven approach to improve provider efficiency and confidence in use of the electronic medical record. J Oncol Pract 2018; 14 (07) e421-e428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Principles behind the Agile manifesto. Accessed April 2021 at: https://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html
    PubMed
  • 33 Schwaber K, Sutherland J. The Scrum Guide (2020). Accessed April 2021 at: https://www.scrum.org/resources/scrum-guide
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Hassett MJ. Usability considerations in oncology electronic medical records. J Oncol Pract 2017; 13 (08) 539-541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar