• Jeremy A Epstein, Joseph Cofrancesco, Mary Catherine Beach, Amanda Bertram, Helene F Hedian, Sara Mixter, Hsin-Chieh Yeh, and Gail Berkenblit.
• Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Outpatient Center, Baltimore, MD, USA. Epstein@jhmi.edu.
• J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Mar 1; 36 (3): 580584580-584.

BackgroundThis is the first randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of note template design on note quality using a simulated patient encounter and a validated assessment tool.ObjectiveTo compare note quality between two different templates using a novel randomized clinical simulation process.DesignA randomized non-blinded controlled trial of a standard note template versus redesigned template.ParticipantsPGY 1-3 IM residents.InterventionsResidents documented the simulated patient encounter using one of two templates. The standard template was modeled after the usual outpatient progress note. The new template placed the assessment and plan section in the beginning, grouped subjective data into the assessment, and deemphasized less useful elements.Main MeasuresNote length; time to note completion; note template evaluation by resident authors; note evaluation by faculty reviewers.Key Results36 residents participated, 19 randomized to standard template, 17 to new. New template generated shorter notes (103 vs 285 lines, p < 0.001) that took the same time to complete (19.8 vs 21.6 min, p = 0.654). Using a 5-point Likert scale, residents considered new notes to have increased visual appeal (4 vs 3, p = 0.05) and less redundancy and clutter (4 vs 3, p = 0.006). Overall template satisfaction was not statistically different. Faculty reviewers rated the standard note more up-to-date (4.3 vs 2.7, p = 0.001), accurate (3.9 vs 2.6, p = 0.003), and useful (4 vs 2.8, p = 0.002), but less organized (3.3 vs 4.5, p < 0.001). Total quality was not statistically different.ConclusionsResidents rated the new note template more visually appealing, shorter, and less cluttered. Faculty reviewers rated both note types equivalent in the overall quality but rated new notes inferior in terms of accuracy and usefulness though better organized. This study demonstrates a novel method of a simulated clinical encounter to evaluate note templates before the introduction into practice.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04333238.

6 keywords...

hide…