Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T16:59:50.037Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

LO55: A pilot evaluation of medical scribes in a Canadian emergency department

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2017

P.S. Graves*
Affiliation:
Queensway-Carleton Hospital, Ottawa, ON
S.R. Graves
Affiliation:
Queensway-Carleton Hospital, Ottawa, ON
T. Minhas
Affiliation:
Queensway-Carleton Hospital, Ottawa, ON
R.E. Lewinson
Affiliation:
Queensway-Carleton Hospital, Ottawa, ON
I.A. Vallerand
Affiliation:
Queensway-Carleton Hospital, Ottawa, ON
R.T. Lewinson
Affiliation:
Queensway-Carleton Hospital, Ottawa, ON
*
*Corresponding authors

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Introduction: Improving emergency department productivity has been a priority across Canada. In the United States, medical scribes have been utilized to increase the number of patients seen per hour (PPH) per physician; however, it is not well known if these outcomes can be translated to Canada. The purpose of this pilot evaluation was to (a) establish proof-of-concept of medical scribes in Canada and (b) gain experience in scribe implementation so as to inform future directions for the use of scribes in Canada. It was hypothesized that use of medical scribes would result in a greater PPH per physician. Methods: We conducted a four-month pilot evaluation of medical scribes in the emergency department of the Queensway-Carleton Hospital in Ottawa, Ontario. Eleven scribes were utilized in the study ranging in age from 18 to 23 years old. Following scribe training and an initial two-month acclimation period for both scribes and physicians, data collection began January 2015. Twenty-two full or part time emergency physicians were followed in this study, who received shifts with and without a scribe over the next four months. Physician work hours as well as the number of patients seen by each physician on each shift was documented. From these metrics, PPH per physician was calculated for each shift. Across the four months, the average PPH was determined for each physician during shifts with a scribe and shifts without a scribe. Two-tailed paired-samples t-tests (α=0.05) were used to compare mean (SD) PPH within physicians based on presence or absence of a scribe. Results: A total of 463 physician hours were documented without use of a scribe and 693.75 physician hours were documented with use of a scribe. Across all 22 physicians in the study, 18 (81.8%) demonstrated a greater PPH with use of a scribe. Overall, PPH per physician was significantly greater (12.9%) during shifts with a scribe (mean 2.81, SD 0.78) compared to shifts without a scribe (mean 2.49, SD 0.60) (p=0.006). Sensitivity analyses revealed that PPH per physician during shifts without a scribe during the study period were similar to the year prior, before scribes were introduced to the hospital (p=0.315). Conclusion: Use of medical scribes resulted in an increased PPH per physician in our hospital. While these results were from an evaluation at a single centre, they support broader implementation and evaluation of scribes in more centres across Canada.

Type
Oral Presentations
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2017