Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 27, Issue 8, pp 968–973 | Cite as

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

  • Adam Wright
  • Joshua Feblowitz
  • Francine L. Maloney
  • Stanislav Henkin
  • David W. Bates
Original Research

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND

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 However, problem lists are frequently inaccurate and out-of-date and use varies widely across providers.

OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to assess provider use of an electronic problem list and identify differences in usage between medical specialties.

DESIGN

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.

PARTICIPANTS

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.

MAIN MEASURES

We analyzed the problem list use across specialties, controlling for note volume as a proxy for visits.

KEY RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

KEY WORDS

patient problem list electronic medical records primary care 

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by a grant from the Partners Community HealthCare Incorporated (PCHI) System Improvement Grant Program and approved by the Partners HealthCare Institutional Review Board. PCHI was not involved in the design, execution or analysis of the study or in the preparation of this manuscript.

Prior Presentations

None to report.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Hartung DM, Hunt J, Siemienczuk J, Miller H, Touchette DR. Clinical implications of an accurate problem list on heart failure treatment. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:143–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wright A, Goldberg H, Hongsermeier T, Middleton B. A description and functional taxonomy of rule-based decision support content at a large integrated delivery network. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14:489–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wright A, McGlinchey EA, Poon EG, Jenter CA, Bates DW, Simon SR. Ability to generate patient registries among practices with and without electronic health records. J Med Internet Res. 2009;11:e31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Poon EG, Wright A, Simon SR, et al. Relationship between use of electronic health record features and health care quality: results of a statewide survey. Med Care. 2010;48:203–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meaningful Use Workgroup Presentation to HIT Policy Committee. 2011. Available at: http://healthit.hhs.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_12811_954838_0_0_18/hitpc-mu-recommendations-06-08-11.ppt. Accessed June 8, 2011.
  6. 6.
    Kaplan DM. Clear writing, clear thinking and the disappearing art of the problem list. J Hosp Med. 2007;2:199–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Szeto HC, Coleman RK, Gholami P, Hoffman BB, Goldstein MK. Accuracy of computerized outpatient diagnoses in a Veterans Affairs general medicine clinic. Am J Manage Care. 2002;8:37–43.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tang PC, LaRosa MP, Gorden SM. Use of computer-based records, completeness of documentation, and appropriateness of documented clinical decisions. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999;6:245–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feblowitz J, Wright A. The Patient Problem List: An Ethnographic Study of Primary Care Provider Use and Attitudes. AMIA 2011 Annual Symposium. Washington, D.C.; 2011 (under review).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wright A, Maloney F, Feblowitz J. Clinician attitudes toward and use of electronic problem lists: a thematic analysis. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2011;11:36–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wright A, Pang J, Feblowitz J, et al. A method and knowledge base for automated inference of patient problems from structured data in an electronic medical record. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18:859–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Information Management Processes (Standard IM 6.40): 2008 Comprehensive Accreditation Manual for Hospitals: The Official Handbook. Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois: Joint Commission Resources: 2008.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McMullen CK, Ash JS, Sittig DF, et al. Rapid assessment of clinical information systems in the healthcare setting. An efficient method for time-pressed evaluation. Methods Inf Med. 2010;50:299–307.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bonetti R, Castelli J, Childress JL, et al. Best practices for problem lists in an EHR. J AHIMA / Am Health Inf Manag Assoc. 2008;79:73–7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam Wright
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Joshua Feblowitz
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Francine L. Maloney
    • 2
  • Stanislav Henkin
    • 1
    • 2
  • David W. Bates
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Division of General Internal MedicineBrigham & Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  2. 2.Partners HealthCareBostonUSA
  3. 3.Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Health Policy and ManagementHarvard School of Public HealthBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations