Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Outpatient Center, Baltimore, MD, USA.
J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Mar;36(3):580-584. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-06188-0. Epub 2020 Sep 8.
This is the first randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of note template design on note quality using a simulated patient encounter and a validated assessment tool.
To compare note quality between two different templates using a novel randomized clinical simulation process.
A randomized non-blinded controlled trial of a standard note template versus redesigned template.
PGY 1-3 IM residents.
Residents documented the simulated patient encounter using one of two templates. The standard template was modeled after the usual outpatient progress note. The new template placed the assessment and plan section in the beginning, grouped subjective data into the assessment, and deemphasized less useful elements.
Note length; time to note completion; note template evaluation by resident authors; note evaluation by faculty reviewers.
36 residents participated, 19 randomized to standard template, 17 to new. New template generated shorter notes (103 vs 285 lines, p < 0.001) that took the same time to complete (19.8 vs 21.6 min, p = 0.654). Using a 5-point Likert scale, residents considered new notes to have increased visual appeal (4 vs 3, p = 0.05) and less redundancy and clutter (4 vs 3, p = 0.006). Overall template satisfaction was not statistically different. Faculty reviewers rated the standard note more up-to-date (4.3 vs 2.7, p = 0.001), accurate (3.9 vs 2.6, p = 0.003), and useful (4 vs 2.8, p = 0.002), but less organized (3.3 vs 4.5, p < 0.001). Total quality was not statistically different.
Residents rated the new note template more visually appealing, shorter, and less cluttered. Faculty reviewers rated both note types equivalent in the overall quality but rated new notes inferior in terms of accuracy and usefulness though better organized. This study demonstrates a novel method of a simulated clinical encounter to evaluate note templates before the introduction into practice.
ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04333238.
这是第一项使用模拟患者就诊并采用经过验证的评估工具来评估笔记模板设计对笔记质量影响的随机对照试验。
使用新颖的随机临床模拟过程比较两种不同模板的笔记质量。
标准模板与重新设计的模板之间的随机非盲对照试验。
PGY1-3 内科住院医师。
住院医师使用两种模板之一记录模拟患者就诊情况。标准模板是根据常规门诊进度记录建模的。新模板将评估和计划部分放在开头,将主观数据分组到评估中,并淡化不太有用的元素。
笔记长度;完成笔记的时间;住院医师作者对笔记模板的评估;教员审阅者对笔记的评估。
36 名住院医师参与,19 名随机分配到标准模板,17 名分配到新模板。新模板生成的笔记更短(103 行与 285 行,p < 0.001),完成时间相同(19.8 分钟与 21.6 分钟,p = 0.654)。使用 5 分制李克特量表,住院医师认为新笔记的视觉吸引力增加(4 分与 3 分,p = 0.05),冗余和混乱减少(4 分与 3 分,p = 0.006)。总体模板满意度没有统计学差异。教员审阅者认为标准笔记更新(4.3 分与 2.7 分,p = 0.001)、准确(3.9 分与 2.6 分,p = 0.003)和有用(4 分与 2.8 分,p = 0.002),但组织性较差(3.3 分与 4.5 分,p < 0.001)。总质量没有统计学差异。
住院医师认为新的笔记模板更具视觉吸引力、更短且更简洁。教员审阅者认为两种类型的笔记在整体质量上相当,但认为新笔记在准确性和有用性方面较差,尽管组织性更好。这项研究展示了一种新颖的模拟临床就诊方法,可在将模板引入实践之前对其进行评估。
ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT04333238。