University of South Florida College of Medicine Tampa, FL
S. Choo1, P. Singh1, J. M. Bryant2, J. M. Frakes2, R. F. Palm3, and S. Hoffe4; 1University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, FL, 2H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Department of Radiation Oncology, Tampa, FL, 3University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, 4H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL
Purpose/Objective(s): With the integration of electronic health records (EHRs), the high burden of documentation time has causedprovider burnout. Organizational interventions can reduce burnout, with studies suggesting scribes can increase provider wellness. Digital scribe technology that changes clinical interactions into medical notes has been developed as an alternative to human scribes. In this study, we wanted to understand Radiation Oncology (RO) provider perceptions and attitudes towards scribes (digital and human). We hypothesized that RO providers would have negative perceptions and attitudes towards digital scribes when compared to human scribes. Materials/
Methods: In this IRB-exempt study, all 40 physician and Advanced Practice Professional (APP) providers at a single institution’s Department of Radiation Oncology were sent an anonymous survey link over email that used a series of 5-point Likert scale questions to gauge their level of burnout and their views regarding human and digital scribes. Descriptive statistics were employed in this study. Results: Of those 20 providers (50%) completing surveys, 60% were over 40 years old. Eighty-five percent of providers did not use a scribe in their practice. Of the three providers who used scribes, two were “slightly burned out” and one was “very burned out,” and all thought human scribes were “extremely” or “moderately” better than digital scribes. Seventy-five percent were not at all experienced with digital scribes. Ninety percent felt that human scribes were better than digital scribes, with 30% “extremely” agreeing. Many providers (70%) did not agree that digital scribes were more efficient than a human scribe; 85% agreed that human scribes were more accurate than digital scribes. Most providers felt some kind of burnout (90%), with 5% feeling “extremely” burned out. Seventy percent of respondents reported they were either “not at all satisfied” or “slightly satisfied” with their work-life balance regarding EHR documentation. Forty-five percent of providers stated they “extremely” agreed that human scribes would improve their work-life balance versus 15% of providers regarding digital scribes. Five percent did not agree that using human scribes would improve their work-life balance as compared to 20% of providers regarding digital scribes. The mean score of respondents agreeing that a human scribe would improve their work-life balance was 3.55 (SD=1.43), which was greater than that of respondents agreeing that a digital scribe would improve their work-life balance 2.55 (SD=1.28; 1=”do not agree”, 5=”extremely agree”). Conclusion: Perception of the accuracy and efficiency of human scribes was superior compared to that of digital scribes among RO providers. Since most providers experienced some degree of burnout due to EHR issues, a departmental level intervention using human scribes may improve their perceived well-being.
