An evaluation of copy and paste events in electronic notes of patients with hospital acquired conditions

Abstract

BackgroundThe increased use of the copy and paste function (CPF) in Electronic Health Records (EHRs) has raised concerns about possible clinician miscommunication and adverse patient outcomes. ObjectiveThis study investigated the prevalence and extent of CPF in the EHRs of patients diagnosed with Hospital-acquired Conditions (HACs). We also examined the association between the use of CPF and patient characteristics. Materials and MethodsThe prevalence and extent of CPF were investigated using electronic clinical notes of 50 patients hospitalized with HACs between 2017 and 2021 at a large academic medical center. Study patients were adults aged 21 and older with a length of stay greater than three days. ANOVA analysis was used to examine the differences in CPF use between patients with different characteristics. ResultsA total of 7,844 clinical notes across seven note types are compared in the study. The mean patient age was 63.7, with an average length of stay of 15.6 days. 54% of Discharge Summaries, 53% of Consults, and 47% of history and physical (H&P) notes had duplications with the same type of notes. In the Discharge Summary, ED notes, and Plan of Care, duplications accounted for 40% or higher of the full text. H&P and Consults, H&P and Discharge Summary, and Discharge Summary and Consults were more likely to have duplications than between other types of notes. Duplications accounted for 15.5% of the information provided in H&P and Consults. The prevalence of CPF was higher in the Discharge Summary of patients who were younger, female, and had longer hospital stays. ConclusionBoth prevalence and extent of duplication were high in the Discharge Summary, Consults, and H&P notes of patients with HACs. Future studies are needed to examine the intention and appropriateness of CPF use and its impact on patient outcomes.