TABLE 4.
TIME REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PAPER VS ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD (EHR) DOCUMENTATION OF CLINICAL ENCOUNTERS BY TWO FACULTY PROVIDERS*
| VARIABLE | PROVIDER A (RETINA) | PROVIDER B (PEDIATRIC) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paper | EHR | Paper | EHR | |
| Number of new patients, n (%) | 6 (5%) | 14 (12%) | 5 (15%) | 10 (14%) |
| Number of follow-up patients, n (%) | 121 (95%) | 99 (88%) | 29 (85%) | 60 (86%) |
| Total number of patients, n | 127 | 113 | 34 | 70 |
| Total clinic time, hours:minutes | 26:50 | 28:30 | 10:24 | 23:47 |
| Total nonclinic time, hours:minutes | 6:05 | 13:30 | 0:00 | 5:57 |
| Total time, hours:minutes | 32:55 | 42:00 | 10:24 | 29:44 |
| Mean clinic time per patient, minutes | 12.7 | 15.1 | 18.4 | 20.4 |
| Mean nonclinic time per patient, minutes | 2.9† | 7.2† | 0.0† | 5.1† |
| Mean total time per patient, minutes | 15.6‡ | 22.3‡ | 18.4‡ | 25.5‡ |
Two faculty providers completed time-motion logs for all clinic time (within the office including examination time) and nonclinic time (outside the office). Time-motion logs were completed by a retina specialist (Provider A) and a pediatric ophthalmologist (Provider B) while performing similar work using different clinical documentation methods for 3 full days at an academic center (EHR system) and for 3 full days at a satellite office (paper system).
Mean nonclinic documentation times per patient were significantly higher with EHR documentation than paper documentation for both providers by the Wilcoxon rank sum test (P=.04 for Provider A, P<.01 for Provider B).
Mean total time per patient for both providers was significantly longer with EHR than with paper (P<.01).