Length and Redundancy of Outpatient Progress Notes Across a Decade at an Academic Medical Center

Abstract Background The new ASHP/IDSA consensus guidelines recommend area under the curve (AUC) monitoring to optimize vancomycin therapy. Little is known about the ability to implement this recommendation in a real-world setting. At UMass Memorial Medical Center (UMMMC), an AUC pharmacy to dose protocol was created to manage infectious diseases (ID) consult patients on vancomycin. The service was piloted by the pharmacy residents and 2 clinical pharmacists. The purpose of this study was to determine if a pharmacy to dose AUC protocol can safely and effectively be implemented. Methods A first-order kinetics calculator was built into the electronic medical record and live education was provided to pharmacists. Pharmacists ordered levels, wrote progress notes, and communicated to teams regarding dose adjustments. Patients were included based upon ID consult and need for vancomycin. After a 3-month implementation period, a retrospective chart review was completed. Patients in the pre-implementation group were admitted 3 months prior to AUC pharmacy to dose, had an ID consult and were monitored by trough (TR) levels. The AUC group was monitored with a steady state peak and trough level to calculate AUC. The primary outcome evaluated time to goal AUC vs. time to goal TR. Secondary outcomes included number of dose adjustments made, total daily dose of vancomycin, and incidence of nephrotoxicity. Results A total of 64 patients met inclusion criteria, with 37 patients monitored by TR and 27 patients monitored by AUC. Baseline characteristics were similar except for weight in kilograms (TR 80.0 ±25.4 vs AUC 92.0 ±26.7; p=0.049). The average time to goal AUC was 4.13 (±2.08) days, and the average time to goal TR was 4.19 (±2.30) days (p=0.982). More dose adjustments occurred in the TR group compared to the AUC (1 vs 2; p=0.037). There was no difference between the two groups in dosing (TR 15.8 mg/kg vs AUC 16.4 mg/kg; p=0.788). Acute kidney injury occurred in 5 patients in the AUC group and 11 patients in the TR group (p=0.765). Conclusion Fewer dose adjustments and less nephrotoxicity was seen utilizing an AUC based protocol. Our small pilot has shown that AUC pharmacy to dose can be safely implemented. Larger studies are needed to evaluate reduction in time to therapeutic goals. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Download Full-text

Accuracy of and prescriber perceptions related to documenting antibiotic indications during order entry at an academic medical center

American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy ◽

10.1093/ajhp/zxz318 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 77 (4) ◽

pp. 282-287

Author(s):

James Beardsley ◽

Mark Vestal ◽

Norbert Rosario ◽

Kalyn Meosky ◽

James Johnson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Medical Center ◽

Academic Medical Center ◽

Final Diagnosis ◽

Antibiotic Prescribing ◽

Order Entry ◽

Empiric Antibiotics ◽

Academic Medical ◽

Progress Notes ◽

Secondary Endpoints ◽

A Minor

Abstract Purpose To assess the accuracy of antibiotic indication documentation provided during order entry and prescriber perceptions of the requirement to specify indications. Methods Patients who received 1 of 6 selected antibiotics from May 1 through June 30, 2017, were identified. Records of 30 randomly selected patients who received each study antibiotic were retrospectively reviewed. The primary endpoint was indication accuracy, defined as agreement of the indication entered during order entry with that documented in progress notes at the time of order entry. Secondary endpoints included correlation of entered indication and final diagnosis for empiric antibiotics. A brief survey was emailed to prescribers to assess the burden and perceptions of requiring an indication during order entry. Results Four thousand five hundred twenty-four patients received 1 or more doses of a study antibiotic. For the 180 patients selected for evaluation, 89.4% of indications were accurate. Indications for antibiotics ordered for prophylaxis were more likely to be inaccurate than those for empiric or definitive antibiotics (accuracy rates of 46%, 94%, and 92%, respectively, p < 0.05). For empiric antibiotics, 78.5% of indications documented at order entry matched the final diagnosis. Two hundred fifty-four of 863 prescribers (29%) responded to the survey request. Most respondents felt that documenting the indication took no more than 20 seconds, was a “minor nuisance” or “occasionally burdensome,” and had no impact on their consideration of antibiotic appropriateness. Conclusion With the exception of prophylaxis, the indications documented during order entry were sufficiently accurate to assist antimicrobial stewardship efforts. Although indication documentation was perceived as a minor burden, surveyed prescribers indicated it had only a minimal beneficial effect on antibiotic prescribing.

Download Full-text

Open notes sounds great, but will a provider’s documentation change? An exploratory study of the effect of open notes on oncology documentation

JAMIA Open ◽

10.1093/jamiaopen/ooab051 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 4 (3) ◽

Author(s):

Maryam Rahimian ◽

Jeremy L Warner ◽

Liz Salmi ◽

S Trent Rosenbloom ◽

Roger B Davis ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Medical Center ◽

Academic Medical Center ◽

Medical Doctor ◽

Care Partners ◽

Academic Medical ◽

Progress Notes ◽

Before And After ◽

The Mean ◽

Oncology Practice ◽

Doctor Communication

Abstract Objective The effects of shared clinical notes on patients, care partners, and clinicians (“open notes”) were first studied as a demonstration project in 2010. Since then, multiple studies have shown clinicians agree shared progress notes are beneficial to patients, and patients and care partners report benefits from reading notes. To determine if implementing open notes at a hematology/oncology practice changed providers’ documentation style, we assessed the length and readability of clinicians’ notes before and after open notes implementation at an academic medical center in Boston, MA, USA. Materials and Methods We analyzed 143 888 notes from 60 hematology/oncology clinicians before and after the open notes debut at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, from January 1, 2012 to September 1, 2016. We measured the providers’ (medical doctor/nurse practitioner) documentation styles by analyzing character length, the number of addenda, note entry mode (dictated vs typed), and note readability. Measurements used 5 different readability formulas and were assessed on notes written before and after the introduction of open notes on November 25, 2013. Results After the introduction of open notes, the mean length of progress notes increased from 6174 characters to 6648 characters (P < .001), and the mean character length of the “assessment and plan” (A&P) increased from 1435 characters to 1597 characters (P < .001). The Average Grade Level Readability of progress notes decreased from 11.50 to 11.33, and overall readability improved by 0.17 (P = .01). There were no statistically significant changes in the length or readability of “Initial Notes” or Letters, inter-doctor communication, nor in the modality of the recording of any kind of note. Conclusions After the implementation of open notes, progress notes and A&P sections became both longer and easier to read. This suggests clinician documenters may be responding to the perceived pressures of a transparent medical records environment.

Download Full-text