Can scribes boost FPs’ efficiency and job satisfaction?

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrated that the use of scribes in a busy academic primary care practice substantially reduced the amount of time that family practitioners spent on charting, improved work-life balance, and had good patient acceptance. Our time-tracking studies demonstrated that physicians spent 5.1 fewer hrs/wk working—4 fewer hrs/wk in the clinic, and 1.1 fewer hrs/wk outside of the clinic—while clinical hours and productivity per session increased. Patients reported high satisfaction with scribed visits and a willingness to have scribes in the future. Creating notes in real time and having immediate availability after the session was a plus for nursing staff in providing follow-up patient care.

Concerns by physicians that having another person in the room would alter the physician-patient relationship were not substantiated, perhaps because the staff routinely obtained consent and explained the scribe’s role. Consistent with previous work, we found no suggestion that a scribe’s presence affected patients’ willingness to discuss sensitive issues.⁹ Patients reacted positively to scribes who enabled physicians to focus more on the patient and less on charting.

Additional visits would generate an estimated $168,600 annually—more than twice the $79,500 annual cost of 2 FTE scribes, yielding a 112% ROI.

Despite increased patient volume, physician morale improved. Physicians left work more than an hour earlier per day, on average, and spent over 1 hour less per week working on clinical documentation outside the office. Physician surveys showed an improvement in perceptions of how much work encroached on their personal life, consistent with the time-tracking data. These results have significant implications for clinician retention, productivity, and satisfaction.

Since our site is an academic training site, one might wonder how residents and advanced practitioners viewed this implementation, as they were not initially included. From the perspective of the administrators, this was a feasibility study. Clinicians who were not included understood that if this pilot was successful, the use of scribes would be expanded in the future. In fact, because of these positive results, our institution has expanded the scribe program, so that it now covers all clinical sessions for faculty in our center and is rolling out a similar program in 3 other departmental academic practices.

Financial implications. At the beginning of this initiative, our institution required that we cover the cost of the program plus generate a 25% ROI. Using a conservative 9.2% increase in billable visits, we extrapolated that utilizing 2 FTE scribes would result in an additional 860 visits annually. Per our hospital’s finance department, estimated revenue generated by our facility-based practice per visit is $196, including ancillaries. That means that additional visits would generate an estimated $168,600 annually—more than twice the $79,500 annual cost of 2 FTE scribes, yielding a 112% ROI. Furthermore, patient access improved by making more visits available. Beyond the positive direct ROI, the improvements in physician morale and work-life balance have positive implications for retention, likely substantially increasing the long-term, overall ROI.

Challenges. Implementing a new program in a large organization proved to be challenging. The biggest hurdle was convincing our institution’s administration and finance department that this new expense would pay for itself in both tangible (increased visits per session) and intangible (increased physician satisfaction and retention) ways. A cost-sharing arrangement proposed by our department’s administrator convinced hospital administration to move forward. Additional challenges included delays in getting the scribe program started because of vendor selection, purchasing new laptops for scribes, hiring and training scribes, developing new EMR templates, validating provider productivity, and legal/compliance approval of the scribe’s EMR documentation processes to meet third-party and accuracy/quality requirements—all taking longer than anticipated. However, we believe that our results indicate significant potential for other primary care practices.

Limitations. The number of physicians in the study was small, and they all worked in the same location. Social desirability could have biased patient and provider feedback, but our quantitative results were consistent with subjective assessments, suggesting that information bias potential was low. Patient and provider survey findings were also supported by qualitative assessments from both scribes and nursing staff. The size of the project did not lend itself to an analysis controlling for clustering by physician and/or scribe. The focus group discussions were not subject to rigorous qualitative analysis, potentially increasing the risk of biased interpretation. Lastly, we did not have the ability to directly compare sessions with and without scribes during the pilot.

Similarity to other findings. Despite these limitations, our findings are remarkably similar to those of Howard, et al,¹⁶ on the pilot implementation of scribes in a community health center, including good patient and clinician acceptance and increased productivity that more than offset the cost of the scribes. We expect that others implementing scribe services in primary care settings will experience similar results.

CORRESPONDENCE
Stephen T. Earls, MD, 151 Worcester Road, Barre, MA 01005; stephen.earls@umassmemorial.org.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Barbara Fisher, MBA, vice president for ambulatory services; Nicholas Comeau, BS; and Brenda Rivard, administrative lead, Barre Family Health Center, UMassMemorial Health Care, in the preparation and execution of this study.