Impact of scribing history and physical notes and procedure reports on endoscopist efficiency during routine procedures: a proof-of-concept study

Medical Scribes in an Orthopedic Sports Medicine Clinic Improve Productivity and Physician Well-Being

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of scribe use on physicians, nurses, and patients in an orthopaedic sports medicine clinic.

Methods

Surveys containing validated outcome measures relating to physician well-being and workplace satisfaction, among other variables, were used to assess the influence of medical scribes on clinic function. These surveys were collected for 8 months from all patients, nurses, and orthopaedic surgeons working in one orthopaedic sports medicine clinic. Time during a half-day clinic (i.e., 20 or more patients) was documented by surgeons after the last patient was seen.

Results

The average time spent per half day of clinic was 104 minutes on nonscribe days and 25 minutes on scribe days. Additionally, the time spent documenting encounters per half day of clinic was 87 minutes on average without scribes and 26 minutes on average with scribes. The average surgeon single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) score was 48.1 without scribes, and 89.3 with scribes. The overall assessment of the clinic by nurses was 73.4 out of 100 on average without scribes and 87.7 out of 100 on average with scribes. Patients did not report a significant change in rating of overall experience (4.7/5.0 with scribes and 4.8/5.0 without scribes, (P = .27) or wait time between scheduled appointment time and surgeon arrival (15.1 minutes with scribes and 18.1 minutes without scribes; P = .12).

Conclusions

We found the use of scribes in a high-volume orthopaedic sports medicine clinic to have a favorable impact on physicians, nurses, and trainees. The use of a scribe also significantly reduced the time required by surgeons for documentation during clinic and at the end of each clinic day. Patients also reported no significant difference in patient clinic experience scores.

Clinical Relevance

Orthopaedic surgeons spend a substantial amount of time on paperwork. The results of this study could provide information on whether the use of a scribe helps to reduce administrative burden on orthopedic surgeons.

Five Years' Experience With a Medical Scribe Fellowship: Shaping Future Health Professions Students While Addressing Provider Burnout

Professional burnout has reached epidemic levels among U.S. medical providers. One key driver is the burden of clinical documentation in the electronic health record, which has given rise to medical scribes. Despite the demonstrated benefits of scribes, many providers-especially those in academic health systems-have been unable to make an economic case for them. With the aim of creating a cost-effective scribe program in which premedical students gain skills that better position them for professional schooling, while providers at risk of burnout obtain documentation support, the authors launched the Clinical Observation and Medical Transcription (COMET) Program in June 2015 at Stanford University School of Medicine. COMET is a new type of postbaccalaureate premedical program that combines an apprenticeship-like scribing experience and a package of teaching, advising, application support, and mentored scholarship that is supported by student tuition. Driven by strong demand from both participants and faculty, the program grew rapidly during its first 5 years (2015-2020). Program evaluations indicated high levels of satisfaction among participants and faculty with their mentors and mentees, respectively; that participants felt the experience better positioned them for professional schooling; and that faculty reported improved joy of practice. In summary, tuition-supported medical scribe programs, like COMET, appear to be feasible and cost-effective. The COMET model may have the potential to help shape future health professions students, while simultaneously combating provider burnout. While scalability and generalizability remain uncertain, this model may be worth exploring at other institutions.

A comparison of 2 distal attachment mucosal exposure devices: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endocuff (Arc Medical Design, Leeds, UK) and Endocuff Vision (Arc Medical Design, Leeds, UK) are effective mucosal exposure devices for improving polyp detection during colonoscopy. AmplifEYE (Medivators Inc, Minneapolis, Minn, USA) is a device that appears similar to the Endocuff devices but has received minimal clinical testing.

METHODS

We performed a randomized controlled clinical trial using a noninferiority design to compare Endocuff Vision with AmplifEYE.

RESULTS

The primary endpoint of adenomas per colonoscopy was similar in AmplifEYE at 1.63 (standard deviation 2.83) versus 1.51 (2.29) with Endocuff Vision (P = .535). The 95% lower confidence limit was 0.88 for ratio of means, establishing noninferiority of AmplifEYE (P = .008). There was no difference between the arms for mean insertion time, and mean inspection time (withdrawal time minus polypectomy time and time for washing and suctioning) was shorter with AmplifEYE (6.8 minutes vs 6.9 minutes, P = .042).

CONCLUSIONS

AmplifEYE is noninferior to Endocuff Vision for adenoma detection. The decision on which device to use can be based on cost. Additional comparisons of AmplifEYE with Endocuff by other investigators are warranted. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03560128.).