Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Computers in the Exam Room: Differences in Physician–Patient Interaction May Be Due to Physician Experience

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Background

The use of electronic medical records can improve the technical quality of care, but requires a computer in the exam room. This could adversely affect interpersonal aspects of care, particularly when physicians are inexperienced users of exam room computers.

Objective

To determine whether physician experience modifies the impact of exam room computers on the physician–patient interaction.

Design

Cross-sectional surveys of patients and physicians.

Setting and Participants

One hundred fifty five adults seen for scheduled visits by 11 faculty internists and 12 internal medicine residents in a VA primary care clinic.

Measurements

Physician and patient assessment of the effect of the computer on the clinical encounter.

Main Results

Patients seeing residents, compared to those seeing faculty, were more likely to agree that the computer adversely affected the amount of time the physician spent talking to (34% vs 15%, P = 0.01), looking at (45% vs 24%, P = 0.02), and examining them (32% vs 13%, P = 0.009). Moreover, they were more likely to agree that the computer made the visit feel less personal (20% vs 5%, P = 0.017). Few patients thought the computer interfered with their relationship with their physicians (8% vs 8%). Residents were more likely than faculty to report these same adverse effects, but these differences were smaller and not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Patients seen by residents more often agreed that exam room computers decreased the amount of interpersonal contact. More research is needed to elucidate key tasks and behaviors that facilitate doctor–patient communication in such a setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Inui TS, Carter WB. Problems and prospects for health services research on provider–patient communication. Med Care. 1985;23(5): 521–38.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Stewart MA. Effective physician–patient communication and health outcomes: a review. CMAJ. 1995;152:1423–33.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hall JA, Horgan TJ, Stein TS, Roter DL. Liking in the physician–patient relationship. Patient Educ Couns. 2002 Sep;48(1):69–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Ware JE, J. Assessing the effects of physician–patient interactions on the outcomes of chronic disease. Med Care.1989;27:S110–S127.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Schneider J, Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Li W, Wilson IB. Better physician–patient relationships are associated with higher reported adherence to antiretroviral therapy in patients with HIV infection. J Gen Intern Med. 2004 Nov;19(11):1096–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Roter DL, Hall JA, Katz NR. Relations between physicians’ behaviors and analogue patients’ satisfaction, recall, and impressions. Med Care.1987;25:437–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Beckman HB, Markakis KM, Suchman AL, Frankel RM. The doctor–patient relationship and malpractice. Lessons from plaintiff depositions. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154(12):1365–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lester GW, Smith SG. Listening and talking to patients. A remedy for malpractice suits? West J Med. 1993;158:268–72

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Blendon RJ, Schoen C, Desroches C, Osborn R, Zapert K. Common concerns amid diverse systems: health care experiences in five countries. Health Aff (Millwood). 2003 May–Jun;22(3):106–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Woolf SH, Kuzel AJ, Dovey SM, Philips RL, Jr. A String of mistakes: the importance of cascade analysis in describing, counting, and preventing medical errors. Ann Fam Med. 2004 Jul–Aug;2(4):292–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Greenfield S, Kaplan S, Ware, JE, Jr. Expanding patient involvement in care. Effects on patient outcomes. Ann Intern Med. 1985 Apr;102(4): 520–28.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hulka BS, Cassel JC, Kupper LL, Burdette JA. Communication, compliance, and concordance between physicians and patients with prescribed medications. Am J Public Health. 1976;66:847–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bates DW, Teich JM, Lee J, et al. The impact of computerized physician order entry on medication error prevention. J Am Med Inform Assoc. Jul–Aug 1999;6(4):313–21.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Versel, N. One in five group practices now use EHRs. Health IT World News Newsletter 2. 1-25-2005. Health-IT World. 11-15-2005

  15. Institute of Medicine, Committee on improving the patient record. The computer-based patient record: An essential technology for health care. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rollman BL, Hanusa BH, Lowe HJ, Gilbert T, Kapoor WN, Schulberg HC. A randomized trial using computerized decision support to improve treatment of major depression in primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2002; 17:493–503.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kaushal R, Shojania KG, Bates DW. Effects of computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support systems on medication safety: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:1409–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hunt DL, Haynes RB, Hanna SE, Smith K. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA. 1998;280:1339–46.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Roter DL, Frankel RM, Hall JA, Sluyter D. The expression of emotion through nonverbal behavior in medical visits. Mechanisms and Outcomes. J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Jan;21(Suppl 1):S28–S34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Waitzkin H. Doctor–patient communication. Clinical implications of social scientific research. JAMA. 1984 Nov 2;252(17):2441–46.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Mitchell E, Sullivan F. A descriptive feast but an evaluative famine: systematic review of published articles on primary care computing during 1980–97. BMJ. 2001;322:279–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Frankel R, Altschuler A, George S, et al. Effects of exam-room computing on clinician–patient communication: a longitudinal qualitative study. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:677–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rubin HR, Gadnek B, Rogers WH, Kosinsky M. Patients’ ratings of outpatients visits in different practice settings: results from the Medical Outcome Study. JAMA. 1993:270:835–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986;73:13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Makoul G, Curry RH, Tang PC. The use of electronic medical records: communication patterns in outpatient encounters. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2001;8:610–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Ridsdale L, Hudd S. Computers in the consultation: the patient’s view. Br J Gen Pract. 1994;44:367–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Solomon GL, Dechter M. Are patients pleased with computer use in the examination room? J Fam Pract. 1995;41:241–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ornstein S, Bearden A. Patient perspectives on computer-based medical records. J Fam Pract. 1994;38:606–10.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Gadd CS, Penrod LE. Dichotomy between physicians’ and patients’ attitudes regarding EMR use during outpatient encounters. Proc AMIA Symp. 2000;275–9.

  30. Legler JD, Oates R. Patients’ reactions to physician use of a computerized medical record system during clinical encounters. J Fam Pract. 1993;37:241–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Aydin CE, Rosen PN, Jewell SM, Felitti VJ. Computers in the examining room: the patient’s perspective. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1995;824–8.

  32. Herzmark G, Brownbridge G, Fitter M, Evans A. Consultation use of a computer by general practitioners. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1984;34:649–54.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Warshawsky SS, Pliskin JS, Urkin J, et al. Physician use of a computerized medical record system during the patient encounter: a descriptive study. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 1994;43:269–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Als AB. The desktop computer as a magic box: patterns of behaviour connected with the desktop computer; GPs’ and patients’ perceptions. Fam Pract. 1997;14:17–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Rowe BH, Ryan DT, Therrien S, Mulloy JV. First-year family medicine residents’ use of computers: knowledge, skills and attitudes. CMAJ. 1995;153:267–72.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Aaronson JW, Murphy-Cullen CL, Chop WM, Frey RD. Electronic medical records: the family practice resident perspective. Fam Med. 2001; 33:128–32.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Embi PJ, Yackel TR, Logan JR, Bowen JL, Cooney TG, Gorman PN. Impacts of computerized physician documentation in a teaching hospital: perceptions of faculty and resident physicians. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004;11:300–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We thank Dr. Stewart Babbott, MD, for his editorial review of the manuscript. The corresponding author conducted the research during his general Internal Medicine fellowship, which was supported by a grant from the Health Resources and Services Administration. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of VA.

Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest

None disclosed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emran Rouf MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rouf, E., Whittle, J., Lu, N. et al. Computers in the Exam Room: Differences in Physician–Patient Interaction May Be Due to Physician Experience. J GEN INTERN MED 22, 43–48 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0112-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0112-9

Key words

Navigation