Filmed Monologue Vignettes: a novel method for investigating how clinicians document consultations in electronic health records
- PMID: 34095518
 - PMCID: PMC8142957
 - DOI: 10.23889/ijpds.v3i1.430
 
Filmed Monologue Vignettes: a novel method for investigating how clinicians document consultations in electronic health records
Abstract
Introduction and objectives: The accuracy of conclusions from research based on Electronic Healthcare Records (EHRs) is highly dependent on the correct selection of descriptors (codes) by users, but few methods exist for examining quality and drivers of documentation. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of filmed vignette monologues as a resource-light method of assessing and comparing how different EHR users record the same clinical scenario.
Methods: Six short monologues portraying simulated patients presenting allergic conditions to their General Practitioners were filmed head-on then electronically distributed for the study; no researcher was present during data collection. The method was assessed by participant uptake, reported ease of completion by participants, compliance with instructions, the receipt of interpretable data by researchers, and participant perceptions of vignette quality, realism and information content.
Results: Twenty-two participants completed the study, reporting only minor difficulties. 132 screenshots were returned electronically, enabling analysis of codes, free text and EHR features. Participants assigned a quality rating of 7.7/10 (range 2-10) to the vignettes and rated the extent to which vignettes reflected real-life at 93% (range 86-100%). Between 1 and 2 hours were required to complete the task. Full compliance with instructions varied between participants, but was largely successful.
Conclusions: Filmed monologues are a reproducible, standardized method, which require relatively few resources, yet allow clear assessment of clinicians' and EHRs systems' impact on documentation. The novel nature of this method necessitates clear instructions, so participants can fully complete the study without face-to-face researcher supervision.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.
Figures
              
              
              
              
                
                
                
              
              
              
              
                
                
                
              
              
              
              
                
                
                
              
              
              
              
                
                
                References
- 
    
- Royal College of General Practitioners. GP Patient Survey shows concerning rise in waiting times for GP appointments, says RCGP 2017 [Available from: http://www.rcgp.org.uk/about-us/news/2017/july/gp-patient-survey-shows-c...]
 
 - 
    
- Read J, Benson T. Comprehensive coding. British Journal of Healthcare Computing. 1986:22-5.
 
 - 
    
- CPRD. CPRD Bibliography [Available from: https://www.cprd.com/Bibliography/]
 
 - 
    
- Sechidis K, Calvo B, Brown G, editors. Statistical Hypothesis Testing in Positive Unlabelled Data. ECML/PKDD (3); 2014. 10.1007/978-3-662-44845-8_5 - DOI
 
 - 
    
- Johansen MA, Scholl J, Hasvold P, Ellingsen G, Bellika JG, editors. Garbage in, garbage out: extracting disease surveillance data from EPR systems in primary care. Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work; 2008: ACM. 10.1055/s-0029-1214399 - DOI
 
 
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources