Article Figures & Data
Tables
Questionnaire Scorea Characteristic 1 No. (%) 2 No. (%) 3 No. (%) 4 No. (%) 5 No. (%) 6 No. (%) 7 No. (%) Physician questionnaire (n=361) Overall satisfaction 2 (0.6) 8 (2.2) 16 (4.4) 39 (10.8) 69 (19.1) 122 (33.8) 105 (29.1) Face time with patients 2 (0.6) 6 (1.7) 16 (4.4) 34 (9.4) 69 (19.1) 90 (24.9) 144 (39.9) Charting time 8 (2.2) 13 (3.6) 26 (7.2) 67 (18.6) 66 (18.3) 87 (24.1) 94 (26.0) Chart quality 3 (0.8) 5 (1.4) 14 (3.9) 27 (7.5) 69 (19.1) 114 (31.6) 129 (35.7) Chart accuracy 2 (0.6) 4 (1.1) 10 (2.8) 36 (10.0) 68 (18.8) 106 (29.4) 135 (37.4) Patient questionnaire (n=1,475) Physician explains things to me 8 (0.5) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.1) 2 (0.1) 8 (0.5) 84 (5.7) 1,372 (93.0) Physician listens to me 8 (0.5) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.1) 3 (0.2) 10 (0.7) 67 (4.5) 1,386 (94.0) Physician cares about me 7 (0.5) 1 (0.1) 0 (0.0) 5 (0.3) 17 (1.2) 72 (4.9) 1,366 (93.1) Physician encourages me to talk 7 (0.5) 1 (0.1) 1 (01) 5 (0.3) 19 (1.3) 84 (5.7) 1,354 (92.0) Physician spends enough time with me 7 (0.5) 1 (0.1) 1 (0.1) 6 (0.4) 22 (1.5) 97 (6.6) 1,341 (90.9) I would recommend this physician 7 (0.5) 1 (0.1) 1 (0.1) 5 (0.3) 10 (0.7) 75 (5.1) 1,375 (93.3) ↵a Responses scored on a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 indicates least satisfaction, and 7 indicates most satisfaction.
Characteristic Scribe Present Median Score (IQR)a Scribe Not Present Median Score (IQR)a Overall satisfaction 6 (6–7) 5 (4–6) Face time with patients 6.5 (6–7) 5 (4–7) Charting time 6 (6–7) 4 (3–5) Chart quality 6 (6–7) 5 (5–6) Chart accuracy 6 (6–7) 6 (5–7) IQR=interquartile range.
↵a Responses scored on a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 indicates least satisfaction, and 7 indicates most satisfaction.
Outcome OR 95% CI P Value Overall satisfaction Scribe 10.75 5.36–21.58 <.001 Physician 1, new interactiona 0.51 0.27–0.96 .038 Physician 2 0.78 0.36–1.71 .539 Physician 3 1.49 0.71–3.12 .288 Physician 4 0.15 0.06–0.41 <.001 Face time with patients Scribe 3.71 1.91–7.21 <.001 Physician 1, new interactiona 0.73 0.37–1.46 .375 Physician 2 1.28 0.63–2.60 .498 Physician 3 4.71 2.35–9.44 <.001 Physician 4 0.11 0.04–0.31 <.001 Charting time Scribe 86.09 19.58–378.41 <.001 Physician 1, new interactiona 1.04 0.56–1.96 .891 Physician 2 1.75 0.70–4.35 .228 Physician 3 1.31 0.55–3.16 .542 Physician 4 0.15 0.05–0.46 .001 Chart quality Scribe 7.25 3.42–15.39 <.001 Physician 1, new interactiona 0.75 0.36–1.55 .435 Physician 2 1.34 0.60–3.01 .475 Physician 3 10.18 4.53–22.85 <.001 Physician 4 0.13 0.04–0.44 .001 Chart accuracy Scribe 4.61 2.11–10.06 <.001 Physician 1, new interactiona 0.38 0.17–0.85 .018 Physician 2 0.81 0.36–1.81 .611 Physician 3 15.19 6.9–33.44 <.001 Physician 4 0.09 0.02–0.34 <.001 OR=odds ratio. Note: Model B.
↵a First interaction between scribe and physician.
Outcome OR 95% CI P Value Physician explains things to me Scribe 0.82 0.48–1.40 .468 Physician 1, new interactiona 0.81 0.48–1.36 .429 Physician 2 0.40 0.22–0.71 .002 Physician 3 1.54 0.72–3.32 .266 Physician 4 0.97 0.50–1.87 .920 Physician listens to me Scribe 0.88 0.49–1.58 .681 Physician 1, new interactiona 0.75 0.42–1.32 .319 Physician 2 0.64 0.36–1.11 .113 Physician 3 2.63 1.18–5.87 .018 Physician 4 1.58 0.82–3.04 .717 Physician cares about me Scribe 1.15 0.67–1.97 .609 Physician 1, new interactiona 0.66 0.38–1.13 .130 Physician 2 0.39 0.22–0.69 .001 Physician 3 2.19 0.96–5.00 .061 Physician 4 0.79 0.43–1.47 .459 Physician encourages me to talk Scribe 1.07 0.63–1.80 .808 Physician 1, new interactiona 0.58 0.35–0.97 .037 Physician 2 0.39 0.22–0.68 .001 Physician 3 2.09 0.95–4.60 .068 Physician 4 0.68 0.38–1.23 .202 Physician spends enough time with me Scribe 1.12 0.70–1.79 .642 Physician 1, new interactiona 0.92 0.06–1.50 .725 Physician 2 0.53 0.33–0.85 .008 Physician 3 3.20 1.57–6.53 .001 Physician 4 1.55 0.90–2.68 .116 I would recommend this physician Scribe 1.06 0.60–1.89 .825 Physician 1, new interactiona 0.59 0.34–1.04 .066 Physician 2 0.34 0.18–0.62 .001 Physician 3 1.79 0.76–4.19 .183 Physician 4 0.75 0.38–1.47 .405 OR=odds ratio.
Note: Model B.
↵a First interaction between scribe and physician.
Additional Files
The Article in Brief
Impact of Scribes on Physician Satisfaction, Patient Satisfaction, and Charting Efficiency: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Steven Lin , and colleagues
Background One of the largest contributors to physician burnout is a growing clerical workload requiring physicians to spend significant time working in the electronic health record. One strategy to decrease clerical burden is the use of scribes, non-licensed team members trained to document patient encounters in real time under the direct supervision of a physician. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of medical scribes on physician satisfaction, patient satisfaction, and charting efficiency.
What This Study Found This study--the first randomized controlled trial of scribes--finds that they produce significant improvements in physician satisfaction without detracting from patient satisfaction. Over the course of one year, family physicians were randomized to one week in which scribes drafted all relevant documentation, which was reviewed and signed by the physician, followed by one week without a scribe in which physicians performed all charting duties. Scribes improved all aspects of physician satisfaction, including overall satisfaction and satisfaction with length of time with patients, time spent charting, chart quality, and chart accuracy. Scribes had no effect on patient satisfaction and increased the proportion of charts that were completed within 48 hours. Physicians were more satisfied with scribed charts than with their own.
Implications
- Spending less time on documentation, the authors note, frees up physicians to pursue direct clinical care, care coordination, and teaching activities, which may help prevent burnout.
- Scribes could complement a high-functioning electronic health record and, until electronic records are redesigned for improved functionality, could provide an immediate solution to the clerical burden EHRs entail.