Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: An unintended consequence of electronic medical record use in the United States is the potential effect on graduate physician training. We assessed educational burdens and benefits of electronic medical record use on United States nephrology fellows by means of a survey. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We used an anonymous online opinion survey of all United States nephrology program directors (n=148), their faculty, and fellows. Program directors forwarded survey links to fellows and clinical faculty, indicating to how many they forwarded the link. The three surveys had parallel questions to permit comparisons. RESULTS: Twenty-two percent of program directors (n=33) forwarded surveys to faculty (n=387) and fellows (n=216; 26% of United States nephrology fellows). Faculty and fellow response rates were 25% and 33%, respectively; 51% of fellows agreed/strongly agreed that the electronic medical record contributed positively to their education. Perceived positive effects included access flexibility and ease of obtaining laboratory/radiology results. Negative effects included copy-forward errors and excessive, irrelevant documentation. Electronic medical record function was reported to be slow, disrupted, or completely lost monthly or more by >40%, and these were significantly less likely to agree that the electronic medical record contributed positively to their education. Electronic medical record completion time demands contributed to fellow reluctance to do procedures (52%), participate in conferences (57%), prolong patient interactions (74%), and do patient-directed reading (55%). Sixty-five percent of fellows reported often/sometimes exceeding work-hours limits due to documentation time demands; 85% of faculty reported often/sometimes observing copy-forward errors. Limitations include potential nonresponse and social desirability bias. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents reported that the electronic medical record enhances fellow education with efficient and geographically flexible patient data access, but the time demands of data and order entry reduce engagement in educational activities, contribute to work-hours violations, and diminish direct patient interactions.