Medical scribes in emergency medicine produce financially significant productivity gains for some, but not all emergency physicians

Abstract

In the present study, scribe usage was associated with overall improvements in primary consultations per hour of 13% per scribed hour, and this varied depending on the physician. There is an economic argument for allocating scribes to some emergency physicians on days, evenings and weekends, not to trainees.

Impact of Physician Navigators on productivity indicators in the ED

“…There was no significant impact on TAT to discharge or patient LOS 9. These results were similar to a recent study which found a 0.11 Pt/hr increase with scribes 11. Three studies have found reductions in door-to-physician time by 3.6 (4.4%), 7 (9.4%) and 22 min (36%) 12–14.…”

An economic evaluation of the costs of training a medical scribe to work in Emergency Medicine

“…Most cost–benefit analyses of scribes have presumed that the scribe is trained and experienced. These analyses estimate 13%–20% medical productivity gains,1 5 8 13 with overall economic gains based on more patients and increased revenue per patient (in the USA, not Australia) set against salary costs of the scribes.…”

The 9-Item Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9) score is not useful in evaluating EMR (scribe) note quality in Emergency Medicine

“…Their use is being evaluated in many settings: Emergency Departments (EDs) [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11], consultant offices [12][13][14][15], primary care [16,17] and hospital wards [1]. Medical scribes have been found to improve physician productivity [3,4,[8][9][10]12] in most Emergency studies, but not all [5,15]. They have also been useful in most office settings [12][13][14] and wards, but again, not all [15].…”