This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
Hospital progress notes can serve as an important communication tool. However, they are criticized for their length, preserved content, and for the time physicians spend writing them.
We aimed to describe hospital progress note content, writing and reading practices, and the preferences of those who create and read them prior to the implementation of a new electronic health record system.
Using a sample of hospital progress notes from 1000 randomly selected admissions, we measured note length, similarity of content in successive daily notes for the same patient, the time notes were signed and read, and who read them. We conducted focus group sessions with note writers, readers, and clinical leaders to understand their preferences.
We analyzed 4938 inpatient progress notes from 418 authors. The average length was 886 words, and most were in the Assessment & Plan note section. A total of 29% of notes (n=1432) were signed after 4 PM. Notes signed later in the day were read less often. Notes were highly similar from one day to the next, and 26% (23/88) had clinical risk associated with the preserved content. Note content of the highest value varied according to the reader’s professional role.
Progress note length varied widely. Notes were often signed late in the day when they were read less often and were highly similar to the note from the previous day. Measuring note length, signing time, when and by whom notes are read, and the amount and safety of preserved content will be useful metrics for measuring how the new electronic health record system is used, and can aid improvements.
Inpatient progress notes can serve as an important communication tool across the physician team, nurses, therapists, consultants, and the patient. Because safety problems that occur in hospitals can be traced to communication lapses [
We have used our current electronic health record (EHR) system at the University of Washington (UW) Medical Center and the Harborview Medical Center for 17 years with little change in the format of the inpatient progress note used in the Medicine service. In preparation for the transition to a new inpatient EHR system, we conducted this analysis of progress notes on inpatient medical services to take stock of current practices. The purpose of this study was to describe current hospital progress note writing and reading practices, as well as the preferences of those who create progress notes and those who read them.
This work retrieved its data from the inpatient general medicine services at the UW Medical Center and the Harborview Medical Center, which are major teaching hospitals of the UW with approximately 35,000 combined admissions annually. The EHR system was installed in 2003, and the transition from paper to electronic notes occurred in 2006 using Cerner Millennium (Cerner Corp). Nearly all progress notes pertaining to these inpatient services are typed using the Clinical Notes Editor, based on templates that automatically import patient-specific data such as medication lists, vital signs, and laboratory results [
We randomly selected 1000 patient admissions to the general Medicine service of UW Medical Center and the Harborview Medical Center between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2017. The Medicine services at both facilities share the same progress note template. We excluded patients admitted to subspecialty services with unique progress note templates (oncology, cardiology, and geriatrics). For each admission, we extracted the data for all daily progress notes as shown in
Full text of the note and other data listed were gathered for each note. Authenticators are supervising physicians whose note cosignature finalizes the note.
Note date and time
Note title
Note authors and authenticators
Note identifier
Note text
Note action log (provided by the electronic health record system), which includes the following:
Action (eg, perform, transcribe, modify, sign and CC/review, verify)
Performed by (name)
Performed date and time
Action status
Comment
Proxy personnel
Requested by (name)
We deidentified each note using published methods [
Sections are automatically created using the template used to create Medicine progress notes.
HOSPITAL DAY
IDENTIFICATION/CHIEF CONCERN
INTERVAL HISTORY
INPATIENT PROBLEM LIST
ALLERGIES
SCHEDULED MEDICATIONS
PRN MEDICATIONS
PHYSICAL EXAM
LABS
Micro
IMAGING
ASSESSMENT & PLAN
Fluids/electrolytes/nutrition
Prophylaxis
Tubes/lines
Disposition
Code status
Contacts
ATTENDING STATEMENT
Additional diagnoses
We identified the sequence of daily notes written for each patient during their hospital stay and then determined the percentage of text within each and in the note as a whole that overlapped with the note written on that same patient the previous day using natural language processing methods [
To determine the clinical implications of copy-paste, we used methods described by Hammond et al [
Note reading practices were analyzed by extracting a note-viewing record using auditing software (P2Sentinel, Cerner Corporation). Each time a note was viewed, the username, user role (resident physician, attending physician, registered nurse, etc), and timestamp were recorded in the auditing database. To determine views within the same hospital day—which have unique potential to communicate the patient’s current clinical state and today’s plan—we assessed note views within 12 hours after the note was signed. Usernames were used to identify members of the patient’s primary team. Views by physicians on the patient’s primary team were assumed to be related to the note writing process, and were excluded from the note-reading analysis. Statistical testing was performed using Stata/IC 13 (StataCorp LLC).
To understand different perspectives on the current use of progress notes, we conducted 3 sets of focus groups:
The UW Institutional Review Board approved this work and designated it as “minimal risk.”
From 1000 randomly selected hospital admissions to the Medicine service, we obtained 4938 inpatient progress notes written by 418 authors, an average of 4.9 daily progress notes per patient admission.
The results of the note analysis are summarized in
Progress note authors signed their notes at various times of the day as shown in
The time at which progress notes were signed by the author.
Distribution of note length in words (the programming code used to calculate note length is available from the authors).
Length of note sections. Box and whisker plots of the number of words in each note section is shown. Box shows IQR. ID: identification.
Display of note readership data for 7 notes. Each colored dot indicates who (role) read the note and when over several days. Different colors indicate different roles. Each column of dots shows the readership of one progress note. QI: quality improvement, ARNP: advanced registered nurse practitioner, PA: physician assistant, RN: registered nurse, MD: medical doctor.
Notes had high levels of similarity to the prior day’s note on the same patient. The median note similarity was 66% using the methods described above. While note similarity was high for all author types (
We conducted manual reviews of note pairs to assess the clinical importance of note similarity. Preserved content from one day to the next was visually highlighted, using the CopyFind program [
Similarity by author training level. Box and whisker plots of the similarity of notes calculated using natural language processing methods [
Similarity by original authorship. Box and whisker plots of the similarity of notes calculated using natural language processing methods [
The scale below is used to assess the risk associated with duplicated note text, derived from Hammond et al [
Code risk description:
1 = Artifact, not misleading, no risk
2 = Artifact, minimally misleading, minimal risk
3 = Human, not misleading, no risk
4 = Human, minimally misleading, minimal risk
5 = Human, misleading, some risk
6 = Human, clinically misleading, major risk
Copy-paste risk, assessed using the Hammond risk scale [
Note-reading practices were analyzed on a random subset of 250 notes (limited by auditing time constraints). The 250 notes in this sample were similar to the overall progress note library: the authors who wrote them were representative of the pool of authors in the larger library, and because they were randomly sampled, other note characteristics (eg, time written, length) were similar to the overall note library. This sample had 4036 note views, an average of 16.1 views per note, which includes many types of professionals beyond bedside nurses and physicians.
Note reads by published time. Plots show the cumulative number of all staff (A) and providers (B) who read notes as a function of the time since the note was viewable (signed).
We learned that note authors vary widely in how they use progress notes (ie, section of note reviewed, such as Labs, Scheduled Medications, etc), and in the purposes for which they use them, such as regarding them to be a billing document, as a “note to self” to remember important items from one day to the next, and as a communication tool to colleagues. Note authors mentioned this as one reason there is so much heterogeneity in the length and content of inpatient progress notes.
Nursing and other ancillary service staff said they value medical progress notes and prefer detailed notes. They regarded them to be an important communication tool that helps them understand what is going on with patients and the plan for the day and for the hospital stay. They frequently used the progress note to assist their communication with families. They reported wanting to see more details regarding the disposition plan and preferred to have the Labs and Radiology sections deleted.
Leaders believed the collective memory in notes to be important to prevent “reinventing the wheel.” They believed that the primary focus of a note should be communication and patient safety, but that we should also make trainees aware of future billing pressures when they finish training and are able to bill. They felt, as a group, that the medication list is important to include in progress notes.
Our analysis of a large set of randomly selected hospital progress notes found that notes were often long and highly similar to the prior day’s note. Additionally, notes that were signed later were read less frequently; about one-third were signed after 4 PM when their value as a communication tool for other providers is diminished. Given the vast quantity of physician hours spent on their creation, inpatient progress notes have been relatively neglected as an area of study. Limitations in duty hours, increased patient complexity, and decline in physician morale suggest a need to re-evaluate our note-writing practices.
We found broad variation in note-writing and reading practices. Some notes in our sample were over 2000 words (approximately half the length of this paper); this may reflect the common practice of copying one day’s assessment into the next day’s note and adding each day’s findings to those of the previous days. The progress notes often become a running summary of the hospitalization.
Our analysis showed a high degree of similarity between notes on the same patient on successive days. Though methods for measuring note content similarity vary across studies [
Note similarity was high across training levels, and while trainee notes had more similarity than attending notes, attending notes were still over 50% similar to the prior day’s note. Perhaps equally concerning was a high degree of similarity between notes with distinct authors. While our Medicine community sees the progress note as more of a living, communal document (where the practice of copy-paste is not viewed as flagrant plagiarism), this practice nevertheless is a clear setup for miscommunication and medical error [
Progress notes in our sample were read frequently by nonprimary team members. Readership of timely clinical data (within 12 hours of note signing) was highly sensitive to the time of day the note was signed, with significantly more notes read if signed before noon. This was especially true of physicians, who tend to have day schedules on the acute care services and are thus unlikely to view a note that is published late in the evening (as many notes are). Nurse views were not sensitive to note-signing time, likely reflecting the presence of night-shift nurses, who also want to use the progress note as a means to communicate the plan of care. (However, if a night-shift nurse reads a note, the content from the morning rounds is over 12 hours old.)
In the focus groups, we heard many and different reasons nurses and physicians value progress notes. Some nurses read them soon after they were created even if it was late in the day and appreciated the detail of Medicine progress notes compared with other services. For nurses, these notes served as an important communication tool to help them understand the Medicine team’s plan. Most expressed interest in more information tailored to their needs. Note authors—largely house staff and hospitalists—also valued notes, though what they valued differed by group. House staff are charged with tracking details, critical and minor, and used their notes for their “future selves”—as a way to remind them of what is to be done and for the collective memory of what has occurred. For hospitalists, there was wide variation in the attitude toward progress note writing, with some hospitalists favoring a more succinct note that concisely summarizes why the patient remains hospitalized and focuses on changes in patient status and plan for that day, while others (especially those who also worked nights) also focused on the importance of a note as a communication tool. Ultimately, the use of the note as a repository or collective memory of hospital course was a hotly contested topic among the hospitalists depending on their attitude toward and group practice with regards to interim summary writing. This suggests a need for direction from leadership regarding the use and role of medical inpatient progress notes versus interim summaries as collective memory of a patient’s hospital course.
Recent literature offers additional perspectives and hopes for progress notes. We know that attendings and house staff physicians differ in their perception of note quality but agree that communication is an important purpose for them [
These results have implications for those who develop electronic documentation systems used in EHRs. Documentation methods that facilitate the completion of notes sooner in the day may result in greater readership, fulfilling an important communication objective for electronic notes. However, the opportunity cost of earlier documentation may be diverting physician hours away from other time-sensitive tasks, such as contacting specialists or meeting with families. Permitting the simple creation of a summary of the hospital course, outside of the progress note itself, could result in more succinct notes that convey what progress occurred that day, and would be simpler to read. Developing note-writing tools that permit more rapid note creation, tailored to the aptitudes of the note author, such as use of voice [
Templates can also speed note writing but is done so at the risk of retaining content of the history or physical exam, which is included in some templates. Many clinicians who read notes are most interested in what the note author has to say rather than what is within the template text. Every change to note-writing approaches has potential for side-effects. For example, methods that reduce the time to create notes and that permit them to be completed earlier in the day may also decrease note quality.
There is an important role for hospital leaders in setting the direction for this critical part of clinical care and training [
Assessment, Plan, Subjective, Objective
electronic health record
magnetic resonance imaging
University of Washington
We greatly appreciate the assistance of Xi Li, who performed the note content analysis, and of Jacki DeNonno and Johnathan Bubalo, Cerner Corporation, for obtaining the data on note readership.
This work was funded by a University of Washington Department of Medicine Accelerator Grant.
None declared.