Skip to main content

Table 2 Unadjusted changes in note quality comparing scribed and baseline visits*

From: Impact of a medical scribe on clinical efficiency and quality in an academic general internal medicine practice

  Baseline Visits
(n = 75), n (%)
Scribed Visits
(n = 75), n (%)
p-value Odds Ratio (95% CI)** p-value
HPI
 Clear 52 (69.3) 69 (92.0) < 0.001 7.30 (2.35–22.70) 0.001
 Sufficient information 25 (33.3) 39 (52.0) 0.32 2.21 (1.13–4.35) 0.02
 Concise 69 (92.0) 72 (96.0) 0.49 2.20 (0.50–9.76) 0.30
 Organized 56 (74.7) 48 (64.0) 0.21 0.59 (0.28–1.22) 0.15
A/P
 Clear 65 (86.7) 63 (84.0) 0.82 0.80 (0.32–2.04) 0.64
 Sufficient information 14 (18.7) 21 (28.0) 0.25 1.76 (0.79–3.93) 0.17
 Concise 73 (97.3) 74 (98.7) 1.00 2.05 (0.18–24.04) 0.56
 Prioritized 38 (50.7) 37 (49.3) 1.00 0.95 (0.49–1.83) 0.87
Internal consistency 60 (80.0) 57 (76.0) 0.69 0.76 (0.33–1.77) 0.53
Duplicates in problem list 30 (40.0) 22 (29.3) 0.23 0.61 (0.31–1.23) 0.17
Duplicates in medication list 18 (24.0) 12 (16.0) 0.31 0.58 (0.25–1.36) 0.21
Total score on Note Quality
Instrument, mean (SD)***
15.6 (2.59) 15.6 (2.49) 0.92 0.04 (−0.75–0.83) 0.92
  1. Abbreviations: HPI history of present illness, A/P assessment/plan
  2. * n (%) represents the number and percentage of charts receiving the highest rating (“Yes”) for each category
  3. ** Odds ratios represent odds of each note quality characteristic comparing scribed visits to baseline visits accounting for study design
  4. *** Denotes mean total score on note quality instrument, which has a maximum possible score of 22