Physician satisfaction with electronic medical records (EMRs): Time for an intelligent health record?

Abstract

318 Background: EMRs are devised to improve the quality and efficiency of healthcare delivery and to reduce medical errors. Despite the widespread use of EMRs, various factors can limit their effectiveness in improving healthcare quality. General EMR use has been cited as a factor contributing to increased workload and clinician burnout in oncology and other specialties. The objective of this qualitative research study was to identify barriers perceived by medical oncologists and hematologists (mO/H) in utilizing EMR software and factors associated with levels of satisfaction. Methods: Between January and April 2021, mO/H from across the U.S. were invited to complete a web-based survey about various trends and critical issues in oncology care. Demographics about the physicians and characteristics of their practices were captured as well in the survey. Responses were aggregated and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 369 mO/H completed the survey: 72% practice in a community setting; 47% identified as a hospital employee; they have an average of 19 years of clinical experience and spend on average 86% of their working time in direct patient care, seeing 17 patients per day on average on clinic days. Most (99%) of mO/H surveyed use an EMR software at their practice, with Epic (45%) and OncoEMR (16%) being the most common. Regarding satisfaction, 16% and 50% reported feeling highly satisfied and satisfied, respectively, with their current EMR, and 3% and 11% reported feeling very dissatisfied or dissatisfied, respectively. Some (19%) stated that they have considered changing their EMR, and 68% are unsure how EMR licensing fees for their practice are paid. EMR pain points most commonly experienced were: time-consuming, e.g., too many steps/click (70%); interoperability, e.g., difficulty sharing information across institutions or other EMR software (45%); data entry issues, e.g., difficulty entering clinical information, scheduling patient visits and reminders, or ordering multiple labs (38%); and poor workflow support (31%). The most useful aspects/features of their EMR software reported were availability of information, e.g., preloaded protocols, chemotherapy regimens and pathways (64%); data access (64%); and multiple access points, including remote access (37%). Conclusions: Satisfaction with EMR were generally positive among the mO/H surveyed. However, there are multiple deterrents to the efficient use of current EMR systems. This information is essential in the design of next-generation EMR (an Intelligent Medical Records system) to allow for incorporation of aspects most useful to the end-users, such as pathway access, preloaded information on cancer management as well as ease of access and portability, and a user experience that minimizes clicks and reduces physician time with EMR.