4.6 Article

Relationship Between Clerical Burden and Characteristics of the Electronic Environment With Physician Burnout and Professional Satisfaction

期刊

MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDINGS
卷 91, 期 7, 页码 836-848

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.05.007

关键词

-

资金

  1. Mayo Clinic Program on Physician Well-being

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate associations between the electronic environment, clerical burden, and burnout in US physicians. Participants and Methods: Physicians across all specialties in the United States were surveyed between August and October 2014. Physicians provided information regarding use of electronic health records (EHRs), computerized physician order entry (CPOE), and electronic patient portals. Burnout was measured using validated metrics. Results: Of 6375 responding physicians in active practice, 5389 (84.5%) reported that they used EHRs. Of 5892 physicians who indicated that CPOE was relevant to their specialty, 4858 (82.5%) reported using CPOE. Physicians who used EHRs and CPOE had lower satisfaction with the amount of time spent on clerical tasks and higher rates of burnout on univariate analysis. On multivariable analysis, physicians who used EHRs (odds ratio [OR] = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57-0.79; P<.001) or CPOE (OR=0.72; 95% CI, 0.62-0.84; P<.001) were less likely to be satisfied with the amount of time spent on clerical tasks after adjusting for age, sex, specialty, practice setting, and hours worked per week. Use of CPOE was also associated with a higher risk of burnout after adjusting for these same factors (OR=1.29; 95% CI, 1.12-1.48; P<.001). Use of EHRs was not associated with burnout in adjusted models controlling for CPOE and other factors. Conclusion: In this large national study, physicians' satisfaction with their EHRs and CPOE was generally low. Physicians who used EHRs and CPOE were less satisfied with the amount of time spent on clerical tasks and were at higher risk for professional burnout. (C) 2016 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据