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