To Employ a Scribe: A Deliberation

With this headline, I question the prudence of employing a scribe to handle electronic medical record (EMR) entries.

I'm inclined toward scribes. Having matured with paper-based records, the shift to EMR was both challenging and tedious for me.

My primary endorsement for scribes hinges on their ability to save physicians valuable time, which in turn can boost their mental well-being.

The merits of this especially shine in primary or urgent care scenarios where the burden of data collection and diagnostic exclusion is high.

During the standard 15-minute patient appointment, my charting was succinct, highlighting only essential elements such as primary concerns, current illness history, relevant physical observations, followed by evaluation and strategy. This was adequate for the patient's immediate needs.

Later, I'd revisit the EMR, adding finer details. EMR systems demand comprehensive data, adding approximately 10 minutes to each patient's record – a duration I meticulously measured. With over 20 patients daily, this translates to an added two hours, elongating my workday.

While serving in an urgent care facility, particularly frenzied Saturdays in January would leave me drained. This drove me to employ a scribe – an adept young lady with a medical inclination and decent computer proficiency. Her addition was refreshing.

Maintaining discretion and adhering to HIPAA, she'd accompany me during consultations. Her efficiency in noting relevant physical examinations and systems reviews, coupled with her aptitude for recording assessments and plans, was commendable.

This allowed me the luxury of undivided attention toward patients during our quarter-hour interaction. This absence of a glaring screen meant uninterrupted conversations and genuine human interactions, rather than feeling like a mere data processor.

Consequently, by day's end, she'd have extensively populated the charts. My role was relegated to reviewing her input, verifying assessments and strategies, and affixing my endorsement. This paved the way for timely departures from work.

The evident drawback? The scribe's compensation. Initially, I bore this cost until the clinic's proprietor kindly intervened. How this benefit is negotiated across different clinics remains a puzzle. Potential solutions might lie in doctors advocating for adequate support, inclusive of scribes, during initial job contracts.

For doctors grappling with time constraints due to high patient influx or those demanding keen cognitive engagement, the financial investment in a scribe is justifiable.