Copy and paste is often used during clinical documentation, but its use can promote inaccurate documentation and patient safety risks. The Partnership for Health IT Patient Safety was formed to collect data, conduct analysis, and make implementation recommendations. In this report, we review 12 published events that resulted from copy and pasting, solicit expert input, and develop implementation strategies. We also identify potential interventions to reduce copy and paste risk. This article will address these issues in more detail.
The decision-making tool has several limitations. The document does not address common questions. However, it provides an explanation of the methodology, benefits, and potential harms of copy and paste. A few examples are provided below. The guidelines are not comprehensive, but they are clear. This tool should be used sparingly. The Partnership aims to develop a toolkit that can help stakeholders implement copy and paste in their settings.
One study found that copy and paste contributed to clinical diagnostic errors. The researchers analyzed medical records of patients who were treated at Veteran’s Health Administration hospitals. The cases were organized according to the systems involved and by standardized tagging taxonomies. In addition, the authors analyzed how often and how frequently copy and paste was used. The results showed that copy and pasting led to significant clinical errors. The study also revealed that copy and pasting is more likely to result in an incorrect diagnosis.
A recent study examined 12 cases of medical records from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). The authors identified cases of unplanned further medical treatment within 14 days, indicating copy and paste may be a contributing factor. The authors reviewed all of these cases and determined whether or not they represented an error. The researchers were able to identify a diagnostic mistake if they were able to identify the errors, and the occurrence of additional complications.
The Department of Education received numerous questions about the Decision-making Tool. The Frequently Asked Questions document addresses the concerns of stakeholders, describes the process of using the alternate assessment, and describes the format of an online alternative assessment. The third resource addresses the instruction of students who participate in an alternate assessment. The ECRI Institute Patient Safety Organization identified twelve cases of events that involved copy and paste. In these cases, the authors found that copy and paste led to clinical errors. They also identified the cases that required further medical care within 14 days.
There are no studies on the benefits of using self-assessment tools. A recent study by the ECRI Institute Patient Safety Organization analyzed 12 cases of patient-reported events. The authors found that copy and paste was a major contributing factor in clinical diagnostic errors. The data were categorized by systems and standardized tagging taxonomies. Among the other questions they asked, the Decision-making Tool has an additional advantage for patients and providers. It eliminates unnecessary in-person visits and avoid unnecessary testing of COVID-negative patients. The third resource describes how it is used by students who take the test.
The findings of this study suggest that copy and paste contributes to clinical diagnostic errors. The research team examined 12 cases of events that involved copy and paste. The data were organized into standardized tagging taxonomies, which allowed for the assessment of their clinical outcomes. They noted that it is difficult to compare copies and pastes with clinical records from a large database. They also concluded that the practice is ineffective.
In addition to copy and paste, the authors studied 12 cases of events. The findings showed that the practice of copy and paste contributed to clinical diagnostic errors. These studies included identifying cases where unplanned medical care occurred within 14 days. Physician reviewers considered these cases for diagnostic error. It is important to note that the authors declare no conflict of interest. All data presented in this study are from standardized data. They did not include human subjects.
The authors of the study conducted a survey of physicians and healthcare professionals about the use of copy and paste. They found that copy and paste contributed to more clinical diagnostic errors than copy and paste. The study analyzed 12 cases of events with standardized tagging taxonomies for diagnoses and treatments. The results of the study also found that the use of copy and pasting led to unplanned medical care within 14 days. The authors noted that this finding suggested that there was a link between the two types of events.