Journal: Applied Clinical Informatics

Article Title: A Multisite Survey Study of EMR Review Habits, Information Needs, and Display Preferences among Medical ICU Clinicians Evaluating New Patients

doi: 10.4338/aci-2017-04-ra-0060

Figure Lengend Snippet: Fig. 1 Self-reported duration of electronic chart review for new medical ICU patients, grouped by team role (n ¼ 153). X-axis repre- sents team role. Box plots represent the 25th, 50th (median), and 75th percentiles, with whiskers extending to 1.5 Interquartile range. Kruskal–Wallis test for pooled analysis of variance showed no sig- nificant difference among ICU team role groupings for “average” patients (p ¼ 0.33) or “complex” patient (p ¼ 0.41). “Complex” patients were defined as those patients in the top 10th percentile for medical complexity or protracted hospital course. APP, advanced practice provider; ICU, intensive care unit.

Article Snippet: All the three sites used three core medical record applications that were developed internally for electronic medical record (EMR) viewing (Synthesis, AWARE, QREADS), as well as a combination of two commercial electronic health records (EHRs, customized versions of General Electric Company Centricity and Cerner PowerChart).

Techniques:

Journal: Applied Clinical Informatics

Article Title: A Multisite Survey Study of EMR Review Habits, Information Needs, and Display Preferences among Medical ICU Clinicians Evaluating New Patients

doi: 10.4338/aci-2017-04-ra-0060

Figure Lengend Snippet: Fig. 3 Perceived usefulness and time spent reviewing electronic information for new medical ICU patients (n = 155). “Please rate the following data elements for USEFULNESS in satisfying your chart review information needs” and “Please rate the following data elements for AVERAGE TIME SPENT per element (compared to total time spent in chart review) in satisfying your chart review information needs.” Data elements ordered in descending order by perceived usefulness, with darker heatmap coloring indicating a higher proportion of respondents. Side-by-side mini- histograms correspond to the adjacent percentages within a column and allow visual estimation of concordance/discordance between the “utility” of information and the relative “time spent” in review. ICU; intensive care unit. aDiagnostic studies excluding primary imaging studies. bOther data (e.g., advance directives, upcoming appointments, pending orders, nursing flowsheet data).

Article Snippet: All the three sites used three core medical record applications that were developed internally for electronic medical record (EMR) viewing (Synthesis, AWARE, QREADS), as well as a combination of two commercial electronic health records (EHRs, customized versions of General Electric Company Centricity and Cerner PowerChart).

Techniques: Imaging

Journal: Applied Clinical Informatics

Article Title: A Multisite Survey Study of EMR Review Habits, Information Needs, and Display Preferences among Medical ICU Clinicians Evaluating New Patients

doi: 10.4338/aci-2017-04-ra-0060

Figure Lengend Snippet: Fig. 2 Self-reported historical depth of electronic chart review for new medical ICU patients (n ¼ 155). “On average, how far back into the record do you review during a typical chart review?” (Y-axis). Histogram bars and counts appear on the left side of the figure, with the right stacked column indicating relative percentages. ICU, in- tensive care unit.

Article Snippet: All the three sites used three core medical record applications that were developed internally for electronic medical record (EMR) viewing (Synthesis, AWARE, QREADS), as well as a combination of two commercial electronic health records (EHRs, customized versions of General Electric Company Centricity and Cerner PowerChart).

Techniques: