Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Impact of Scribes on Physician Satisfaction, Patient Satisfaction, and Charting Efficiency: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Risha Gidwani, Cathina Nguyen, Alexis Kofoed, Catherine Carragee, Tracy Rydel, Ian Nelligan, Amelia Sattler, Megan Mahoney and Steven Lin
The Annals of Family Medicine September 2017, 15 (5) 427-433; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2122
Risha Gidwani
1Center for Health Policy and Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California
2Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California
DrPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cathina Nguyen
3Division of Epidemiology, Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California
MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alexis Kofoed
2Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California
MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Catherine Carragee
2Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California
BA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tracy Rydel
2Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ian Nelligan
2Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Amelia Sattler
2Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Megan Mahoney
2Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Steven Lin
2Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: stevenlin@stanford.edu
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Survey Questionnaire Completion

    CharacteristicScribe No. (%)No Scribe No. (%)Total No.
    Patient satisfaction questionnaires completed808 (54.8)667 (45.2)1,475a
    Physician satisfaction questionnaires completed192 (53.2)169 (46.8)361b
    Charts analyzed for efficiency1,381 (52.4)1,255 (47.6)2,636
    • ↵a Of 1,681 questionnaires distributed, 87.7% were returned.

    • ↵b Of 494 questionnaires distributed, 73.1% were returned.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Physician and Patient Questionnaire Results, Unadjusted

    Questionnaire Scorea
    Characteristic1 No. (%)2 No. (%)3 No. (%)4 No. (%)5 No. (%)6 No. (%)7 No. (%)
    Physician questionnaire (n=361)
     Overall satisfaction2 (0.6)8 (2.2)16 (4.4)39 (10.8)69 (19.1)122 (33.8)105 (29.1)
     Face time with patients2 (0.6)6 (1.7)16 (4.4)34 (9.4)69 (19.1)90 (24.9)144 (39.9)
     Charting time8 (2.2)13 (3.6)26 (7.2)67 (18.6)66 (18.3)87 (24.1)94 (26.0)
     Chart quality3 (0.8)5 (1.4)14 (3.9)27 (7.5)69 (19.1)114 (31.6)129 (35.7)
     Chart accuracy2 (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 me8 (0.5)0 (0.0)1 (0.1)2 (0.1)8 (0.5)84 (5.7)1,372 (93.0)
     Physician listens to me8 (0.5)0 (0.0)1 (0.1)3 (0.2)10 (0.7)67 (4.5)1,386 (94.0)
     Physician cares about me7 (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 talk7 (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 me7 (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 physician7 (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.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Physician Satisfaction, Unadjusted Results

    CharacteristicScribe Present Median Score (IQR)aScribe Not Present Median Score (IQR)a
    Overall satisfaction6 (6–7)5 (4–6)
    Face time with patients6.5 (6–7)5 (4–7)
    Charting time6 (6–7)4 (3–5)
    Chart quality6 (6–7)5 (5–6)
    Chart accuracy6 (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.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Physician Satisfaction, Adjusted Results

    OutcomeOR95% CIP Value
    Overall satisfaction
     Scribe10.755.36–21.58<.001
     Physician 1, new interactiona0.510.27–0.96.038
     Physician 20.780.36–1.71.539
     Physician 31.490.71–3.12.288
     Physician 40.150.06–0.41<.001
    Face time with patients
     Scribe3.711.91–7.21<.001
     Physician 1, new interactiona0.730.37–1.46.375
     Physician 21.280.63–2.60.498
     Physician 34.712.35–9.44<.001
     Physician 40.110.04–0.31<.001
    Charting time
     Scribe86.0919.58–378.41<.001
     Physician 1, new interactiona1.040.56–1.96.891
     Physician 21.750.70–4.35.228
     Physician 31.310.55–3.16.542
     Physician 40.150.05–0.46.001
    Chart quality
     Scribe7.253.42–15.39<.001
     Physician 1, new interactiona0.750.36–1.55.435
     Physician 21.340.60–3.01.475
     Physician 310.184.53–22.85<.001
     Physician 40.130.04–0.44.001
    Chart accuracy
     Scribe4.612.11–10.06<.001
     Physician 1, new interactiona0.380.17–0.85.018
     Physician 20.810.36–1.81.611
     Physician 315.196.9–33.44<.001
     Physician 40.090.02–0.34<.001
    • OR=odds ratio. Note: Model B.

    • ↵a First interaction between scribe and physician.

    • View popup
    Table 5

    Patient Satisfaction, Adjusted Results

    OutcomeOR95% CIP Value
    Physician explains things to me
     Scribe0.820.48–1.40.468
     Physician 1, new interactiona0.810.48–1.36.429
     Physician 20.400.22–0.71.002
     Physician 31.540.72–3.32.266
     Physician 40.970.50–1.87.920
    Physician listens to me
     Scribe0.880.49–1.58.681
     Physician 1, new interactiona0.750.42–1.32.319
     Physician 20.640.36–1.11.113
     Physician 32.631.18–5.87.018
     Physician 41.580.82–3.04.717
    Physician cares about me
     Scribe1.150.67–1.97.609
     Physician 1, new interactiona0.660.38–1.13.130
     Physician 20.390.22–0.69.001
     Physician 32.190.96–5.00.061
     Physician 40.790.43–1.47.459
    Physician encourages me to talk
     Scribe1.070.63–1.80.808
     Physician 1, new interactiona0.580.35–0.97.037
     Physician 20.390.22–0.68.001
     Physician 32.090.95–4.60.068
     Physician 40.680.38–1.23.202
    Physician spends enough time with me
     Scribe1.120.70–1.79.642
     Physician 1, new interactiona0.920.06–1.50.725
     Physician 20.530.33–0.85.008
     Physician 33.201.57–6.53.001
     Physician 41.550.90–2.68.116
    I would recommend this physician
     Scribe1.060.60–1.89.825
     Physician 1, new interactiona0.590.34–1.04.066
     Physician 20.340.18–0.62.001
     Physician 31.790.76–4.19.183
     Physician 40.750.38–1.47.405
    • OR=odds ratio.

    • Note: Model B.

    • ↵a First interaction between scribe and physician.

    • View popup
    Table 6

    Charting Efficiency, Adjusted Results for Less Than 48 Hours to Close Chart

    VariableOR95% CIP Value
    Scribe1.181.02–1.36.028
    Physician 1, new interactiona1.010.86–1.18.950
    Physician 26.265.04–7.76<.001
    Physician 38.356.75–10.33<.001
    Physician 44.803.85–5.99<.001
    • OR=odds ratio.

    • Note: Model B.

    • ↵a First interaction between scribe and physician.

Additional Files

  • Tables
  • 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.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 15 (5)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 15 (5)
Vol. 15, Issue 5
September/October 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
  • In Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Impact of Scribes on Physician Satisfaction, Patient Satisfaction, and Charting Efficiency: A Randomized Controlled Trial
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
1 + 10 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Impact of Scribes on Physician Satisfaction, Patient Satisfaction, and Charting Efficiency: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Risha Gidwani, Cathina Nguyen, Alexis Kofoed, Catherine Carragee, Tracy Rydel, Ian Nelligan, Amelia Sattler, Megan Mahoney, Steven Lin
The Annals of Family Medicine Sep 2017, 15 (5) 427-433; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2122

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Impact of Scribes on Physician Satisfaction, Patient Satisfaction, and Charting Efficiency: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Risha Gidwani, Cathina Nguyen, Alexis Kofoed, Catherine Carragee, Tracy Rydel, Ian Nelligan, Amelia Sattler, Megan Mahoney, Steven Lin
The Annals of Family Medicine Sep 2017, 15 (5) 427-433; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2122
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Enhancing Clinical Documentation Workflow with Ambient Artificial Intelligence: Clinician Perspectives on Work Burden, Burnout, and Job Satisfaction
  • Only One Quarter of Family Physicians Are Very Satisfied with Their Electronic Health Records Platform
  • Variable Impact of Medical Scribes on Physician Electronic Health Record Documentation Practices: A Quantitative Analysis Across a Large, Integrated Health-System
  • Burnout, Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Among Family Physicians in Kansas: 18 Months into the COVID-19 Pandemic
  • Variation in Support for Documentation Among Primary Care Physicians by Gender
  • Variation in Support for Documentation Among Primary Care Physicians by Gender
  • Burnout, Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Among Family Physicians in Kansas: 18 Months into the COVID-19 Pandemic
  • Effect of interventions for the well-being, satisfaction and flourishing of general practitioners--a systematic review
  • Do Medical Scribes Help Primary Care Providers Respond More Quickly to Out-of-Visit Tasks?
  • Quality of Electronic Health Record Data on Which We Stand
  • Impact of scribes on emergency medicine doctors productivity and patient throughput: multicentre randomised trial
  • Finance and Time Use Implications of Team Documentation for Primary Care: A Microsimulation
  • Impact of Medical Scribes in Primary Care on Productivity, Face-to-Face Time, and Patient Comfort
  • Physician Burnout: Resilience Training is Only Part of the Solution
  • One Year of Family Physicians' Observations on Working with Medical Scribes
  • Tethered to the EHR: A Physician Workload Assessment
  • In This Issue: Tools to Help Focus on What is Valuable
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Family-Based Interventions to Promote Weight Management in Adults: Results From a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in India
  • Teamwork Among Primary Care Staff to Achieve Regular Follow-Up of Chronic Patients
  • Shared Decision Making Among Racially and/or Ethnically Diverse Populations in Primary Care: A Scoping Review of Barriers and Facilitators
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Methods:
    • Quantitative methods
  • Other research types:
    • Health services
    • Professional practice
  • Other topics:
    • Organizational / practice change
    • Patient perspectives

Keywords

  • medical scribes
  • electronic health records
  • work satisfaction
  • patient satisfaction
  • efficiency
  • primary care physicians
  • randomized controlled trial

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine