Johnson, Kevin B.

AbstractDocumentation burden contributes to health professional burnout and negatively impacts health professional well-being and patient care quality. Yet, there is a gap in the literature regarding an effective measure to assess the perceived documentation burden of health professionals in a wide range of care settings over time.We developed and administered a pulse survey to trend, with subsequent administrations, the perceived documentation burden of health professionals in all care settings in the United States over time.A multimethods approach was used which included conducting a scoping review of the literature to identify and then curate a set of potential survey items based on scoping review results. Next, a modified Delphi approach was used with clinical informatics experts for consensus-driven item selection and pulse survey development. Finally, we administered the pulse survey nationally using snowball sampling through professional listservs and networks of organizations.The scoping review helped to identify constructs and items to include on the pulse survey. After four iterations of the modified Delphi approach, consensus was reached on five final items for the pulse survey, labeled “TrendBurden.” The first administration of “TrendBurden” was completed by 1,253 healthcare professionals in April 2024. Most respondents (73.26%) disagreed that the time and effort spent documenting patient care is appropriate, with 77.42% reporting finishing work later or needing to work from home due to excessive documentation tasks. Seventy-four point three-eight percent agreed that the effort or time required to complete documentation tasks impedes patient care, and less than one-third (31.76%) agreed that the EHR is easy to use.The “TrendBurden” Pulse Survey was developed through a scoping review of the literature and expert consensus. The resulting five-question pulse survey was administered nationally and provided insight into current perceptions of documentation burden among healthcare professionals.

Abstract Objective The Genomic Medicine Working Group of the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research virtually hosted its 13th genomic medicine meeting titled “Developing a Clinical Genomic Informatics Research Agenda”. The meeting’s goal was to articulate a research strategy to develop Genomics-based Clinical Informatics Tools and Resources (GCIT) to improve the detection, treatment, and reporting of genetic disorders in clinical settings. Materials and Methods Experts from government agencies, the private sector, and academia in genomic medicine and clinical informatics were invited to address the meeting's goals. Invitees were also asked to complete a survey to assess important considerations needed to develop a genomic-based clinical informatics research strategy. Results Outcomes from the meeting included identifying short-term research needs, such as designing and implementing standards-based interfaces between laboratory information systems and electronic health records, as well as long-term projects, such as identifying and addressing barriers related to the establishment and implementation of genomic data exchange systems that, in turn, the research community could help address. Discussion Discussions centered on identifying gaps and barriers that impede the use of GCIT in genomic medicine. Emergent themes from the meeting included developing an implementation science framework, defining a value proposition for all stakeholders, fostering engagement with patients and partners to develop applications under patient control, promoting the use of relevant clinical workflows in research, and lowering related barriers to regulatory processes. Another key theme was recognizing pervasive biases in data and information systems, algorithms, access, value, and knowledge repositories and identifying ways to resolve them.