Neveen El‐Farra, MD

The electronic health record (EHR) has revolutionized the practice of medicine. As part of the economic stimulus package in 2009, Congress enacted the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, which included incentives for physicians and hospitals to adopt an EHR by 2015. In the setting of more limited duty hours and demands for increased clinical productivity, EHRs have functions that may improve the quality and efficiency of clinical documentation.[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

The process of note writing and the use of notes for clinical care have changed substantially with EHR implementation. Use of efficiency tools (ie, copy forward functions and autopopulation of data) may increase the speed of documentation.[5] Notes in an EHR are more legible and accessible and may be able to organize data to improve clinical care.[6]

Yet, many have commented on the negative consequences of documentation in an EHR. In a New England Journal of Medicine Perspective article, Drs. Hartzband and Groopman wrote, we have observed the electronic medical record become a powerful vehicle for perpetuating erroneous information, leading to diagnostic errors that gain momentum when passed on electronically.[7] As a result, the copy forward and autopopulation functions have come under significant scrutiny.[8, 9, 10] A survey conducted at 2 academic institutions found that 71% of residents and attendings believed that the copy forward function led to inconsistencies and outdated information.[11] Autopopulation has been criticized for creating lengthy notes full of trivial or redundant data, a phenomenon termed note bloat. Bloated notes may be less effective as a communication tool.[12] Additionally, the process of composing a note often stimulates critical thinking and may lead to changes in care. The act of copying forward a previous note and autopopulating data bypasses that process and in effect may suppress critical thinking.[13] Previous studies have raised numerous concerns regarding copy forward and autopopulation functionality in the EHR. Many have described the duplication of outdated data and the possibility of the introduction and perpetuation of errors.[14, 15, 16] The Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health system evaluated 6322 copy events and found that 1 in 10 electronic patient charts contained an instance of high‐risk copying.[17] In a survey of faculty and residents at a single academic medical center, the majority of users of copy and paste functionality recognized the hazards; they responded that their notes may contain more outdated (66%) and more inconsistent information (69%). Yet, most felt copy forwarding improved the documentation of the entire hospital course (87%), overall physician documentation (69%), and should definitely be continued (91%).[11] Others have complained about the impact of copy forward on the expression of clinical reasoning.[7, 9, 18]

Previous discussions on the topic of overall note quality following EHR implementation have been limited to perspectives or opinion pieces of individual attending providers.[18] We conducted a survey across 4 academic institutions to analyze both housestaff and attendings perceptions of the quality of notes since the implementation of an EHR to better inform the discussion of the impact of an EHR on note quality.

METHODS

RESULTS

Overall Assessment of Note Quality

Participants were asked to rate the quality of progress notes on a 5‐point scale (poor, fair, good, very good, excellent). Half of interns and residents rated their own progress notes as very good or excellent. A total of 44% percent of interns and 24% of residents rated their peers notes as very good or excellent, whereas only 15% of attending physicians rated housestaff notes as very good or excellent.

When asked to rate the change in progress note quality since their hospital had adopted the EHR, the majority of residents answered unchanged or better, and the majority of attendings answered unchanged or worse (Figure 1).

Figure 1

PDQI‐9 Framework

Participants answered each PDQI‐9 question on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from not at all (1) to extremely (5). In 8 of the 9 PDQI‐9 domains, there were no significant differences between interns and residents. Across each domain, attending perceptions of housestaff notes were significantly lower than housestaff perceptions of their own notes (P<0.001) (Figure 2). Both housestaff and attendings gave the highest ratings to thorough, up to date, and synthesized and the lowest rating to succinct.

Figure 2

Copy Forward and Autopopulation

Overall, the effect of copy forward and autopopulation on critical thinking, note accuracy, and prioritizing the problem list was thought to be neutral or somewhat positive by interns, neutral by residents, and neutral or somewhat negative by attendings (P<0.001) (Figure 3). In all, 16% of interns, 22% of residents, and 55% of attendings reported that copy forward had a somewhat negative or very negative impact on critical thinking (P<0.001). In all, 16% of interns, 29% of residents and 39% of attendings thought that autopopulation had a somewhat negative or very negative impact on critical thinking (P<0.001).

Figure 3

DISCUSSION

This is the first large multicenter analysis of both attendings and housestaff perceptions of note quality in the EHR era. The findings provide insight into important differences and similarities in the perceptions of the 2 groups. Most striking is the difference in opinion of overall note quality, with only a small minority of faculty rating current housestaff notes as very good or excellent, whereas a much larger proportion of housestaff rated their own notes and those of their peers to be of high quality. Though participants were not specifically asked why note quality in general was suboptimal, housestaff and faculty rankings of specific domains from the PDQI‐9 may yield an important clue. Specifically, all groups expressed that the weakest attribute of current progress notes is succinct. This finding is consistent with the note bloat phenomenon, which has been maligned as a consequence of EHR implementation.[7, 14, 18, 21, 22]

One interesting finding was that only 5% of interns rated the notes of other housestaff as fair or poor. One possible explanation for this may be the tendency for an individual to enhance or augment the status or performance of the group to which he or she belongs as a mechanism to increase self‐image, known as the social identity theory.[23] Thus, housestaff may not criticize their peers to allow for identification with a group that is not deficient in note writing.

The more positive assessment of overall note quality among housestaff could be related to the different roles of housestaff and attendings on a teaching service. On a teaching service, housestaff are typically the writer, whereas attendings are almost exclusively the reader of progress notes. Housestaff may reap benefits, including efficiency, beyond the finished product. A perception of higher quality may reflect the process of note writing, data gathering, and critical thinking required to build an assessment and plan. The scores on the PDQI‐9 support this notion, as housestaff rated all 9 domains significantly higher than attendings.

Housestaff and attendings held greater differences of opinion with respect to the EHR's impact on note quality. Generally, housestaff perceived the EHR to have improved progress note quality, whereas attendings perceived the opposite. One explanation could be that these results reflect changing stages of development of physicians well described through the RIME framework (reporter, interpreter, manager, educator). Attendings may expect notes to reflect synthesis and analysis, whereas trainees may be satisfied with the data gathering that an EHR facilitates. In our survey, the trend of answers from intern to resident to attending suggests an evolving process of attitudes toward note quality.

The above reasons may also explain why housestaff were generally more positive than attendings about the effect of copy forward and autopopulation functions on critical thinking. Perhaps, as these functions can potentially increase efficiency and decrease time spent at the computer, although data are mixed on this finding, housestaff may have more time to spend with patients or develop a thorough plan and thus rate these functions positively.

Notably, housestaff and attendings had excellent agreement on the purposes of a progress note. They agreed that the 2 most important purposes were communication with other providers and documenting important events and the plan for the day. These are the 2 listed purposes that are most directly related to patient care. If future interventions to improve note quality require housestaff and attendings to significantly change their behavior, a focus on the impact on patient care might yield the best results.

There were several limitations in our study. Any study based on self‐assessment is subject to bias. A previous meta‐analysis and review described poor to moderate correlations between self‐assessed and external measures of performance.[24, 25] The survey data were aggregated from 4 institutions despite somewhat different, though relatively high, response rates between the institutions. There could be a response bias; those who did not respond may have systematically different perceptions of note quality. It should be noted that the general demographics of the respondents reflected those of the housestaff and attendings at 4 academic centers. All 4 of the participating institutions adopted the Epic EHR within the last several years of the survey being administered, and perceptions of note quality may be biased depending on the prior system used (ie, change from handwritten to electronic vs electronic to other electronic system). In addition, the survey results reflect experience with only 1 EHR, and our results may not apply to other EHR vendors or institutions like the VA, which have a long‐standing system in place. Last, we did not explore the impact of perceived note quality on the measured or perceived quality of care. One previous study found no direct correlation between note quality and clinical quality.[26]

There are several future directions for research based on our findings. First, potential differences between housestaff and attending perceptions of note quality could be further teased apart by studying the perceptions of attendings on a nonteaching service who write their own daily progress notes. Second, housestaff perceptions on why copy forward and autopopulation may increase critical thinking could be explored further with more direct questioning. Finally, although our study captured only perceptions of note quality, validated tools could be used to objectively measure note quality; these measurements could then be compared to perception of note quality as well as clinical outcomes.

Given the prevalence and the apparent belief that the benefits of an EHR outweigh the hazards, institutions should embrace these innovations but take steps to mitigate the potential errors and problems associated with copy forward and autopopulation. The results of our study should help inform future interventions.

The electronic health record (EHR) has revolutionized the practice of medicine. As part of the economic stimulus package in 2009, Congress enacted the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, which included incentives for physicians and hospitals to adopt an EHR by 2015. In the setting of more limited duty hours and demands for increased clinical productivity, EHRs have functions that may improve the quality and efficiency of clinical documentation.[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

The process of note writing and the use of notes for clinical care have changed substantially with EHR implementation. Use of efficiency tools (ie, copy forward functions and autopopulation of data) may increase the speed of documentation.[5] Notes in an EHR are more legible and accessible and may be able to organize data to improve clinical care.[6]

Yet, many have commented on the negative consequences of documentation in an EHR. In a New England Journal of Medicine Perspective article, Drs. Hartzband and Groopman wrote, we have observed the electronic medical record become a powerful vehicle for perpetuating erroneous information, leading to diagnostic errors that gain momentum when passed on electronically.[7] As a result, the copy forward and autopopulation functions have come under significant scrutiny.[8, 9, 10] A survey conducted at 2 academic institutions found that 71% of residents and attendings believed that the copy forward function led to inconsistencies and outdated information.[11] Autopopulation has been criticized for creating lengthy notes full of trivial or redundant data, a phenomenon termed note bloat. Bloated notes may be less effective as a communication tool.[12] Additionally, the process of composing a note often stimulates critical thinking and may lead to changes in care. The act of copying forward a previous note and autopopulating data bypasses that process and in effect may suppress critical thinking.[13] Previous studies have raised numerous concerns regarding copy forward and autopopulation functionality in the EHR. Many have described the duplication of outdated data and the possibility of the introduction and perpetuation of errors.[14, 15, 16] The Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health system evaluated 6322 copy events and found that 1 in 10 electronic patient charts contained an instance of high‐risk copying.[17] In a survey of faculty and residents at a single academic medical center, the majority of users of copy and paste functionality recognized the hazards; they responded that their notes may contain more outdated (66%) and more inconsistent information (69%). Yet, most felt copy forwarding improved the documentation of the entire hospital course (87%), overall physician documentation (69%), and should definitely be continued (91%).[11] Others have complained about the impact of copy forward on the expression of clinical reasoning.[7, 9, 18]

Previous discussions on the topic of overall note quality following EHR implementation have been limited to perspectives or opinion pieces of individual attending providers.[18] We conducted a survey across 4 academic institutions to analyze both housestaff and attendings perceptions of the quality of notes since the implementation of an EHR to better inform the discussion of the impact of an EHR on note quality.

METHODS

RESULTS

Overall Assessment of Note Quality

Participants were asked to rate the quality of progress notes on a 5‐point scale (poor, fair, good, very good, excellent). Half of interns and residents rated their own progress notes as very good or excellent. A total of 44% percent of interns and 24% of residents rated their peers notes as very good or excellent, whereas only 15% of attending physicians rated housestaff notes as very good or excellent.

When asked to rate the change in progress note quality since their hospital had adopted the EHR, the majority of residents answered unchanged or better, and the majority of attendings answered unchanged or worse (Figure 1).

Figure 1

PDQI‐9 Framework

Participants answered each PDQI‐9 question on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from not at all (1) to extremely (5). In 8 of the 9 PDQI‐9 domains, there were no significant differences between interns and residents. Across each domain, attending perceptions of housestaff notes were significantly lower than housestaff perceptions of their own notes (P<0.001) (Figure 2). Both housestaff and attendings gave the highest ratings to thorough, up to date, and synthesized and the lowest rating to succinct.

Figure 2

Copy Forward and Autopopulation

Overall, the effect of copy forward and autopopulation on critical thinking, note accuracy, and prioritizing the problem list was thought to be neutral or somewhat positive by interns, neutral by residents, and neutral or somewhat negative by attendings (P<0.001) (Figure 3). In all, 16% of interns, 22% of residents, and 55% of attendings reported that copy forward had a somewhat negative or very negative impact on critical thinking (P<0.001). In all, 16% of interns, 29% of residents and 39% of attendings thought that autopopulation had a somewhat negative or very negative impact on critical thinking (P<0.001).

Figure 3

DISCUSSION

This is the first large multicenter analysis of both attendings and housestaff perceptions of note quality in the EHR era. The findings provide insight into important differences and similarities in the perceptions of the 2 groups. Most striking is the difference in opinion of overall note quality, with only a small minority of faculty rating current housestaff notes as very good or excellent, whereas a much larger proportion of housestaff rated their own notes and those of their peers to be of high quality. Though participants were not specifically asked why note quality in general was suboptimal, housestaff and faculty rankings of specific domains from the PDQI‐9 may yield an important clue. Specifically, all groups expressed that the weakest attribute of current progress notes is succinct. This finding is consistent with the note bloat phenomenon, which has been maligned as a consequence of EHR implementation.[7, 14, 18, 21, 22]

One interesting finding was that only 5% of interns rated the notes of other housestaff as fair or poor. One possible explanation for this may be the tendency for an individual to enhance or augment the status or performance of the group to which he or she belongs as a mechanism to increase self‐image, known as the social identity theory.[23] Thus, housestaff may not criticize their peers to allow for identification with a group that is not deficient in note writing.

The more positive assessment of overall note quality among housestaff could be related to the different roles of housestaff and attendings on a teaching service. On a teaching service, housestaff are typically the writer, whereas attendings are almost exclusively the reader of progress notes. Housestaff may reap benefits, including efficiency, beyond the finished product. A perception of higher quality may reflect the process of note writing, data gathering, and critical thinking required to build an assessment and plan. The scores on the PDQI‐9 support this notion, as housestaff rated all 9 domains significantly higher than attendings.

Housestaff and attendings held greater differences of opinion with respect to the EHR's impact on note quality. Generally, housestaff perceived the EHR to have improved progress note quality, whereas attendings perceived the opposite. One explanation could be that these results reflect changing stages of development of physicians well described through the RIME framework (reporter, interpreter, manager, educator). Attendings may expect notes to reflect synthesis and analysis, whereas trainees may be satisfied with the data gathering that an EHR facilitates. In our survey, the trend of answers from intern to resident to attending suggests an evolving process of attitudes toward note quality.

The above reasons may also explain why housestaff were generally more positive than attendings about the effect of copy forward and autopopulation functions on critical thinking. Perhaps, as these functions can potentially increase efficiency and decrease time spent at the computer, although data are mixed on this finding, housestaff may have more time to spend with patients or develop a thorough plan and thus rate these functions positively.

Notably, housestaff and attendings had excellent agreement on the purposes of a progress note. They agreed that the 2 most important purposes were communication with other providers and documenting important events and the plan for the day. These are the 2 listed purposes that are most directly related to patient care. If future interventions to improve note quality require housestaff and attendings to significantly change their behavior, a focus on the impact on patient care might yield the best results.

There were several limitations in our study. Any study based on self‐assessment is subject to bias. A previous meta‐analysis and review described poor to moderate correlations between self‐assessed and external measures of performance.[24, 25] The survey data were aggregated from 4 institutions despite somewhat different, though relatively high, response rates between the institutions. There could be a response bias; those who did not respond may have systematically different perceptions of note quality. It should be noted that the general demographics of the respondents reflected those of the housestaff and attendings at 4 academic centers. All 4 of the participating institutions adopted the Epic EHR within the last several years of the survey being administered, and perceptions of note quality may be biased depending on the prior system used (ie, change from handwritten to electronic vs electronic to other electronic system). In addition, the survey results reflect experience with only 1 EHR, and our results may not apply to other EHR vendors or institutions like the VA, which have a long‐standing system in place. Last, we did not explore the impact of perceived note quality on the measured or perceived quality of care. One previous study found no direct correlation between note quality and clinical quality.[26]

There are several future directions for research based on our findings. First, potential differences between housestaff and attending perceptions of note quality could be further teased apart by studying the perceptions of attendings on a nonteaching service who write their own daily progress notes. Second, housestaff perceptions on why copy forward and autopopulation may increase critical thinking could be explored further with more direct questioning. Finally, although our study captured only perceptions of note quality, validated tools could be used to objectively measure note quality; these measurements could then be compared to perception of note quality as well as clinical outcomes.

Given the prevalence and the apparent belief that the benefits of an EHR outweigh the hazards, institutions should embrace these innovations but take steps to mitigate the potential errors and problems associated with copy forward and autopopulation. The results of our study should help inform future interventions.

The electronic health record (EHR) has revolutionized the practice of medicine. As part of the economic stimulus package in 2009, Congress enacted the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, which included incentives for physicians and hospitals to adopt an EHR by 2015. In the setting of more limited duty hours and demands for increased clinical productivity, EHRs have functions that may improve the quality and efficiency of clinical documentation.[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

The process of note writing and the use of notes for clinical care have changed substantially with EHR implementation. Use of efficiency tools (ie, copy forward functions and autopopulation of data) may increase the speed of documentation.[5] Notes in an EHR are more legible and accessible and may be able to organize data to improve clinical care.[6]

Yet, many have commented on the negative consequences of documentation in an EHR. In a New England Journal of Medicine Perspective article, Drs. Hartzband and Groopman wrote, we have observed the electronic medical record become a powerful vehicle for perpetuating erroneous information, leading to diagnostic errors that gain momentum when passed on electronically.[7] As a result, the copy forward and autopopulation functions have come under significant scrutiny.[8, 9, 10] A survey conducted at 2 academic institutions found that 71% of residents and attendings believed that the copy forward function led to inconsistencies and outdated information.[11] Autopopulation has been criticized for creating lengthy notes full of trivial or redundant data, a phenomenon termed note bloat. Bloated notes may be less effective as a communication tool.[12] Additionally, the process of composing a note often stimulates critical thinking and may lead to changes in care. The act of copying forward a previous note and autopopulating data bypasses that process and in effect may suppress critical thinking.[13] Previous studies have raised numerous concerns regarding copy forward and autopopulation functionality in the EHR. Many have described the duplication of outdated data and the possibility of the introduction and perpetuation of errors.[14, 15, 16] The Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health system evaluated 6322 copy events and found that 1 in 10 electronic patient charts contained an instance of high‐risk copying.[17] In a survey of faculty and residents at a single academic medical center, the majority of users of copy and paste functionality recognized the hazards; they responded that their notes may contain more outdated (66%) and more inconsistent information (69%). Yet, most felt copy forwarding improved the documentation of the entire hospital course (87%), overall physician documentation (69%), and should definitely be continued (91%).[11] Others have complained about the impact of copy forward on the expression of clinical reasoning.[7, 9, 18]

Previous discussions on the topic of overall note quality following EHR implementation have been limited to perspectives or opinion pieces of individual attending providers.[18] We conducted a survey across 4 academic institutions to analyze both housestaff and attendings perceptions of the quality of notes since the implementation of an EHR to better inform the discussion of the impact of an EHR on note quality.

METHODS

RESULTS

Overall Assessment of Note Quality

Participants were asked to rate the quality of progress notes on a 5‐point scale (poor, fair, good, very good, excellent). Half of interns and residents rated their own progress notes as very good or excellent. A total of 44% percent of interns and 24% of residents rated their peers notes as very good or excellent, whereas only 15% of attending physicians rated housestaff notes as very good or excellent.

When asked to rate the change in progress note quality since their hospital had adopted the EHR, the majority of residents answered unchanged or better, and the majority of attendings answered unchanged or worse (Figure 1).

Figure 1

PDQI‐9 Framework

Participants answered each PDQI‐9 question on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from not at all (1) to extremely (5). In 8 of the 9 PDQI‐9 domains, there were no significant differences between interns and residents. Across each domain, attending perceptions of housestaff notes were significantly lower than housestaff perceptions of their own notes (P<0.001) (Figure 2). Both housestaff and attendings gave the highest ratings to thorough, up to date, and synthesized and the lowest rating to succinct.

Figure 2

Copy Forward and Autopopulation

Overall, the effect of copy forward and autopopulation on critical thinking, note accuracy, and prioritizing the problem list was thought to be neutral or somewhat positive by interns, neutral by residents, and neutral or somewhat negative by attendings (P<0.001) (Figure 3). In all, 16% of interns, 22% of residents, and 55% of attendings reported that copy forward had a somewhat negative or very negative impact on critical thinking (P<0.001). In all, 16% of interns, 29% of residents and 39% of attendings thought that autopopulation had a somewhat negative or very negative impact on critical thinking (P<0.001).

Figure 3

DISCUSSION

This is the first large multicenter analysis of both attendings and housestaff perceptions of note quality in the EHR era. The findings provide insight into important differences and similarities in the perceptions of the 2 groups. Most striking is the difference in opinion of overall note quality, with only a small minority of faculty rating current housestaff notes as very good or excellent, whereas a much larger proportion of housestaff rated their own notes and those of their peers to be of high quality. Though participants were not specifically asked why note quality in general was suboptimal, housestaff and faculty rankings of specific domains from the PDQI‐9 may yield an important clue. Specifically, all groups expressed that the weakest attribute of current progress notes is succinct. This finding is consistent with the note bloat phenomenon, which has been maligned as a consequence of EHR implementation.[7, 14, 18, 21, 22]

One interesting finding was that only 5% of interns rated the notes of other housestaff as fair or poor. One possible explanation for this may be the tendency for an individual to enhance or augment the status or performance of the group to which he or she belongs as a mechanism to increase self‐image, known as the social identity theory.[23] Thus, housestaff may not criticize their peers to allow for identification with a group that is not deficient in note writing.

The more positive assessment of overall note quality among housestaff could be related to the different roles of housestaff and attendings on a teaching service. On a teaching service, housestaff are typically the writer, whereas attendings are almost exclusively the reader of progress notes. Housestaff may reap benefits, including efficiency, beyond the finished product. A perception of higher quality may reflect the process of note writing, data gathering, and critical thinking required to build an assessment and plan. The scores on the PDQI‐9 support this notion, as housestaff rated all 9 domains significantly higher than attendings.

Housestaff and attendings held greater differences of opinion with respect to the EHR's impact on note quality. Generally, housestaff perceived the EHR to have improved progress note quality, whereas attendings perceived the opposite. One explanation could be that these results reflect changing stages of development of physicians well described through the RIME framework (reporter, interpreter, manager, educator). Attendings may expect notes to reflect synthesis and analysis, whereas trainees may be satisfied with the data gathering that an EHR facilitates. In our survey, the trend of answers from intern to resident to attending suggests an evolving process of attitudes toward note quality.

The above reasons may also explain why housestaff were generally more positive than attendings about the effect of copy forward and autopopulation functions on critical thinking. Perhaps, as these functions can potentially increase efficiency and decrease time spent at the computer, although data are mixed on this finding, housestaff may have more time to spend with patients or develop a thorough plan and thus rate these functions positively.

Notably, housestaff and attendings had excellent agreement on the purposes of a progress note. They agreed that the 2 most important purposes were communication with other providers and documenting important events and the plan for the day. These are the 2 listed purposes that are most directly related to patient care. If future interventions to improve note quality require housestaff and attendings to significantly change their behavior, a focus on the impact on patient care might yield the best results.

There were several limitations in our study. Any study based on self‐assessment is subject to bias. A previous meta‐analysis and review described poor to moderate correlations between self‐assessed and external measures of performance.[24, 25] The survey data were aggregated from 4 institutions despite somewhat different, though relatively high, response rates between the institutions. There could be a response bias; those who did not respond may have systematically different perceptions of note quality. It should be noted that the general demographics of the respondents reflected those of the housestaff and attendings at 4 academic centers. All 4 of the participating institutions adopted the Epic EHR within the last several years of the survey being administered, and perceptions of note quality may be biased depending on the prior system used (ie, change from handwritten to electronic vs electronic to other electronic system). In addition, the survey results reflect experience with only 1 EHR, and our results may not apply to other EHR vendors or institutions like the VA, which have a long‐standing system in place. Last, we did not explore the impact of perceived note quality on the measured or perceived quality of care. One previous study found no direct correlation between note quality and clinical quality.[26]

There are several future directions for research based on our findings. First, potential differences between housestaff and attending perceptions of note quality could be further teased apart by studying the perceptions of attendings on a nonteaching service who write their own daily progress notes. Second, housestaff perceptions on why copy forward and autopopulation may increase critical thinking could be explored further with more direct questioning. Finally, although our study captured only perceptions of note quality, validated tools could be used to objectively measure note quality; these measurements could then be compared to perception of note quality as well as clinical outcomes.

Given the prevalence and the apparent belief that the benefits of an EHR outweigh the hazards, institutions should embrace these innovations but take steps to mitigate the potential errors and problems associated with copy forward and autopopulation. The results of our study should help inform future interventions.

A 36‐year‐old woman was admitted after new‐onset Hseizures. She had been diagnosed with breast cancer 5 years prior to admission. At that time, she underwent left radical mastectomy and lymph node dissection. Lymph nodes were positive for metastatic disease with negative HER‐2‐Neu and positive estrogen and progesterone receptors. She was treated with docetaxel and tamoxifen but subsequently developed metastatic left hip lesions and was treated with letrozole and anastrozole. Three years later, scans revealed further metastatic disease to the liver, lung, and vertebral column. She was subsequently treated with capecitabine, until further disease progression led to the use of carboplatin and paclitaxel. Seven months prior to admission, her cancer was progressing and she was switched to doxorubicin, gemcitabine, and bevacizumab. Six weeks prior to admission, both positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT) scan of her whole body and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain illustrated significant improvement. Her last dose of bevacizumab was given 3 weeks prior to her admission.

Two weeks prior to admission, patient reported new‐onset daily headache. These were often localized in the occipital region. She reported some associated nausea and occasional emesis. Subsequently, she developed photophobia and phonophobia. On seeking outpatient treatment for her headache, it was noted that her systolic blood pressure had increased from a baseline of 100 mm Hg to 170 mm Hg. On the day prior to admission, she reported severe headache and several episodes of emesis and later that evening had a witnessed tonic‐clonic seizure.

The patient presented to an outside hospital and had an unremarkable noncontrast CT scan of her brain. An examination of her cerebrospinal fluid revealed negative gram stain, and a normal white blood cell count and protein level. She was treated with lorazepam, phenytoin, and decadron. On becoming more alert, she insisted on going home, where she later developed recurrent headache and presented to our emergency room.

On admission to our service, she was noted to be confused and irritable, and unable to provide any history. Her exam revealed a blood pressure of 143/102 mmHg. No localizing neurologic signs were noted and her laboratory values were normal. After sedation, MRI of the brain was obtained (Figure 1). This revealed diffuse and patchy gyriform hyperintensity of the white matter, most consistent with posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES).

Figure 1

Upon reflection, the patient had new onset hypertension that coincided with the initiation and dosing of bevacizumab. Bevacizumab, an antineoplastic agent, is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to and neutralizes vascular endothelial growth factor, thereby preventing angiogenesis.1 It is known to cause grade 3 hypertension in a minority of patients. Therefore, it was postulated that the patient's persistent blood pressure elevation resulted in vasogenic brain edema, precipitating her seizure. Subsequent to the diagnosis, her blood pressure was aggressively controlled with oral enalapril, metoprolol, triamterene/hydrochlorothiazide, and hydralazine. By hospital day 7, her headache had subsided and her altered mental status had resolved. She had no further episodes of seizures and bevacizumab was discontinued.

PRES has a distinct constellation of clinical symptoms and radiologic findings. The name PRES is a misnomer, as this syndrome is not always reversible, nor is it restricted to the white matter or to the posterior areas of the brain.2 It is hypothesized that a sudden rise in blood pressure leads to elevations in intracranial pressure, which exceeds the brain's autoregulatory mechanisms. This subsequently leads to transudation of fluid into the brain parenchyma. Interestingly, it appears that it is not the absolute level of systolic blood pressure that is critical in the development of PRES, but the rate of change in blood pressure. Hence, patients with chronic hypertension have developed adaptive vascular changes that protect them from this type of parenchymal damage.

PRES has gained increasing recognition due to the use of immunosuppressive and chemotherapeutic medications in organ transplant and oncology patients. Drugs such as cyclosporine, tacrolimus, fludarabine, vincristine, cisplatin, cytarabine, interferon‐alpha, interleukin, antiretroviral therapy, erythropoietin, granulocyte stimulating factor, and intravenous immunoglobulin have all been implicated.3 In addition to increasing blood pressure, these agents likely cause direct toxic injury to the brain, disrupting the blood‐brain barrier and resulting in subsequent edema. Other conditions associated with PRES include renal disease, vasculitis, endocrine disorders, porphyria, cocaine or amphetamine abuse, and stimulant abuse.

Clinically, PRES can present as headache, altered mental status, confusion, drowsiness progressing to stupor, emesis, abnormal visual perceptions, visual neglect, cortical blindness, difficulty with memory and concentration, brisk deep tendon reflexes, weakness, ataxia, and seizure activity. PRES has a characteristic appearance on neuroimaging that differentiates it from other forms of hypertensive encephalopathy. Edema of the white or gray matter in the posterior cerebral hemispheres, particularly the bilateral parietooccipital regions, is seen. PRES can also diffusely involve the brain stem, cerebellum, basal ganglia, and the frontal lobes. Abnormalities on neuroimaging are often symmetric but clinical manifestations can be asymmetric. MRI and CT scans can both be utilized for characterization of PRES.4

There are currently no published guidelines for the management of PRES. Expert opinion suggests removing the underlying cause and aggressively treating the hypertension.5 Furthermore, initiation and duration of antiepileptics remains controversial. After aggressive blood pressure control, resolution of findings on neuroimaging studies are expected anywhere from 8 days to 17 months.

Timely recognition of PRES is critical for prevention of further neurologic compromise. Immediate discontinuation of offending agents, as well as aggressive treatment of blood pressure, is the cornerstone treatment for PRES. In the future, a better understanding of the pathophysiology of PRES can lead to improved diagnostic and management options.

A 36‐year‐old woman was admitted after new‐onset Hseizures. She had been diagnosed with breast cancer 5 years prior to admission. At that time, she underwent left radical mastectomy and lymph node dissection. Lymph nodes were positive for metastatic disease with negative HER‐2‐Neu and positive estrogen and progesterone receptors. She was treated with docetaxel and tamoxifen but subsequently developed metastatic left hip lesions and was treated with letrozole and anastrozole. Three years later, scans revealed further metastatic disease to the liver, lung, and vertebral column. She was subsequently treated with capecitabine, until further disease progression led to the use of carboplatin and paclitaxel. Seven months prior to admission, her cancer was progressing and she was switched to doxorubicin, gemcitabine, and bevacizumab. Six weeks prior to admission, both positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT) scan of her whole body and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain illustrated significant improvement. Her last dose of bevacizumab was given 3 weeks prior to her admission.

Two weeks prior to admission, patient reported new‐onset daily headache. These were often localized in the occipital region. She reported some associated nausea and occasional emesis. Subsequently, she developed photophobia and phonophobia. On seeking outpatient treatment for her headache, it was noted that her systolic blood pressure had increased from a baseline of 100 mm Hg to 170 mm Hg. On the day prior to admission, she reported severe headache and several episodes of emesis and later that evening had a witnessed tonic‐clonic seizure.

The patient presented to an outside hospital and had an unremarkable noncontrast CT scan of her brain. An examination of her cerebrospinal fluid revealed negative gram stain, and a normal white blood cell count and protein level. She was treated with lorazepam, phenytoin, and decadron. On becoming more alert, she insisted on going home, where she later developed recurrent headache and presented to our emergency room.

On admission to our service, she was noted to be confused and irritable, and unable to provide any history. Her exam revealed a blood pressure of 143/102 mmHg. No localizing neurologic signs were noted and her laboratory values were normal. After sedation, MRI of the brain was obtained (Figure 1). This revealed diffuse and patchy gyriform hyperintensity of the white matter, most consistent with posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES).

Figure 1

Upon reflection, the patient had new onset hypertension that coincided with the initiation and dosing of bevacizumab. Bevacizumab, an antineoplastic agent, is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to and neutralizes vascular endothelial growth factor, thereby preventing angiogenesis.1 It is known to cause grade 3 hypertension in a minority of patients. Therefore, it was postulated that the patient's persistent blood pressure elevation resulted in vasogenic brain edema, precipitating her seizure. Subsequent to the diagnosis, her blood pressure was aggressively controlled with oral enalapril, metoprolol, triamterene/hydrochlorothiazide, and hydralazine. By hospital day 7, her headache had subsided and her altered mental status had resolved. She had no further episodes of seizures and bevacizumab was discontinued.

PRES has a distinct constellation of clinical symptoms and radiologic findings. The name PRES is a misnomer, as this syndrome is not always reversible, nor is it restricted to the white matter or to the posterior areas of the brain.2 It is hypothesized that a sudden rise in blood pressure leads to elevations in intracranial pressure, which exceeds the brain's autoregulatory mechanisms. This subsequently leads to transudation of fluid into the brain parenchyma. Interestingly, it appears that it is not the absolute level of systolic blood pressure that is critical in the development of PRES, but the rate of change in blood pressure. Hence, patients with chronic hypertension have developed adaptive vascular changes that protect them from this type of parenchymal damage.

PRES has gained increasing recognition due to the use of immunosuppressive and chemotherapeutic medications in organ transplant and oncology patients. Drugs such as cyclosporine, tacrolimus, fludarabine, vincristine, cisplatin, cytarabine, interferon‐alpha, interleukin, antiretroviral therapy, erythropoietin, granulocyte stimulating factor, and intravenous immunoglobulin have all been implicated.3 In addition to increasing blood pressure, these agents likely cause direct toxic injury to the brain, disrupting the blood‐brain barrier and resulting in subsequent edema. Other conditions associated with PRES include renal disease, vasculitis, endocrine disorders, porphyria, cocaine or amphetamine abuse, and stimulant abuse.

Clinically, PRES can present as headache, altered mental status, confusion, drowsiness progressing to stupor, emesis, abnormal visual perceptions, visual neglect, cortical blindness, difficulty with memory and concentration, brisk deep tendon reflexes, weakness, ataxia, and seizure activity. PRES has a characteristic appearance on neuroimaging that differentiates it from other forms of hypertensive encephalopathy. Edema of the white or gray matter in the posterior cerebral hemispheres, particularly the bilateral parietooccipital regions, is seen. PRES can also diffusely involve the brain stem, cerebellum, basal ganglia, and the frontal lobes. Abnormalities on neuroimaging are often symmetric but clinical manifestations can be asymmetric. MRI and CT scans can both be utilized for characterization of PRES.4

There are currently no published guidelines for the management of PRES. Expert opinion suggests removing the underlying cause and aggressively treating the hypertension.5 Furthermore, initiation and duration of antiepileptics remains controversial. After aggressive blood pressure control, resolution of findings on neuroimaging studies are expected anywhere from 8 days to 17 months.

Timely recognition of PRES is critical for prevention of further neurologic compromise. Immediate discontinuation of offending agents, as well as aggressive treatment of blood pressure, is the cornerstone treatment for PRES. In the future, a better understanding of the pathophysiology of PRES can lead to improved diagnostic and management options.

A 36‐year‐old woman was admitted after new‐onset Hseizures. She had been diagnosed with breast cancer 5 years prior to admission. At that time, she underwent left radical mastectomy and lymph node dissection. Lymph nodes were positive for metastatic disease with negative HER‐2‐Neu and positive estrogen and progesterone receptors. She was treated with docetaxel and tamoxifen but subsequently developed metastatic left hip lesions and was treated with letrozole and anastrozole. Three years later, scans revealed further metastatic disease to the liver, lung, and vertebral column. She was subsequently treated with capecitabine, until further disease progression led to the use of carboplatin and paclitaxel. Seven months prior to admission, her cancer was progressing and she was switched to doxorubicin, gemcitabine, and bevacizumab. Six weeks prior to admission, both positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT) scan of her whole body and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain illustrated significant improvement. Her last dose of bevacizumab was given 3 weeks prior to her admission.

Two weeks prior to admission, patient reported new‐onset daily headache. These were often localized in the occipital region. She reported some associated nausea and occasional emesis. Subsequently, she developed photophobia and phonophobia. On seeking outpatient treatment for her headache, it was noted that her systolic blood pressure had increased from a baseline of 100 mm Hg to 170 mm Hg. On the day prior to admission, she reported severe headache and several episodes of emesis and later that evening had a witnessed tonic‐clonic seizure.

The patient presented to an outside hospital and had an unremarkable noncontrast CT scan of her brain. An examination of her cerebrospinal fluid revealed negative gram stain, and a normal white blood cell count and protein level. She was treated with lorazepam, phenytoin, and decadron. On becoming more alert, she insisted on going home, where she later developed recurrent headache and presented to our emergency room.

On admission to our service, she was noted to be confused and irritable, and unable to provide any history. Her exam revealed a blood pressure of 143/102 mmHg. No localizing neurologic signs were noted and her laboratory values were normal. After sedation, MRI of the brain was obtained (Figure 1). This revealed diffuse and patchy gyriform hyperintensity of the white matter, most consistent with posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES).

Figure 1

Upon reflection, the patient had new onset hypertension that coincided with the initiation and dosing of bevacizumab. Bevacizumab, an antineoplastic agent, is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to and neutralizes vascular endothelial growth factor, thereby preventing angiogenesis.1 It is known to cause grade 3 hypertension in a minority of patients. Therefore, it was postulated that the patient's persistent blood pressure elevation resulted in vasogenic brain edema, precipitating her seizure. Subsequent to the diagnosis, her blood pressure was aggressively controlled with oral enalapril, metoprolol, triamterene/hydrochlorothiazide, and hydralazine. By hospital day 7, her headache had subsided and her altered mental status had resolved. She had no further episodes of seizures and bevacizumab was discontinued.

PRES has a distinct constellation of clinical symptoms and radiologic findings. The name PRES is a misnomer, as this syndrome is not always reversible, nor is it restricted to the white matter or to the posterior areas of the brain.2 It is hypothesized that a sudden rise in blood pressure leads to elevations in intracranial pressure, which exceeds the brain's autoregulatory mechanisms. This subsequently leads to transudation of fluid into the brain parenchyma. Interestingly, it appears that it is not the absolute level of systolic blood pressure that is critical in the development of PRES, but the rate of change in blood pressure. Hence, patients with chronic hypertension have developed adaptive vascular changes that protect them from this type of parenchymal damage.

PRES has gained increasing recognition due to the use of immunosuppressive and chemotherapeutic medications in organ transplant and oncology patients. Drugs such as cyclosporine, tacrolimus, fludarabine, vincristine, cisplatin, cytarabine, interferon‐alpha, interleukin, antiretroviral therapy, erythropoietin, granulocyte stimulating factor, and intravenous immunoglobulin have all been implicated.3 In addition to increasing blood pressure, these agents likely cause direct toxic injury to the brain, disrupting the blood‐brain barrier and resulting in subsequent edema. Other conditions associated with PRES include renal disease, vasculitis, endocrine disorders, porphyria, cocaine or amphetamine abuse, and stimulant abuse.

Clinically, PRES can present as headache, altered mental status, confusion, drowsiness progressing to stupor, emesis, abnormal visual perceptions, visual neglect, cortical blindness, difficulty with memory and concentration, brisk deep tendon reflexes, weakness, ataxia, and seizure activity. PRES has a characteristic appearance on neuroimaging that differentiates it from other forms of hypertensive encephalopathy. Edema of the white or gray matter in the posterior cerebral hemispheres, particularly the bilateral parietooccipital regions, is seen. PRES can also diffusely involve the brain stem, cerebellum, basal ganglia, and the frontal lobes. Abnormalities on neuroimaging are often symmetric but clinical manifestations can be asymmetric. MRI and CT scans can both be utilized for characterization of PRES.4

There are currently no published guidelines for the management of PRES. Expert opinion suggests removing the underlying cause and aggressively treating the hypertension.5 Furthermore, initiation and duration of antiepileptics remains controversial. After aggressive blood pressure control, resolution of findings on neuroimaging studies are expected anywhere from 8 days to 17 months.

Timely recognition of PRES is critical for prevention of further neurologic compromise. Immediate discontinuation of offending agents, as well as aggressive treatment of blood pressure, is the cornerstone treatment for PRES. In the future, a better understanding of the pathophysiology of PRES can lead to improved diagnostic and management options.