The role of copy and paste function in orthopedic trauma progress notes.

Introduction: The electronic medical record (EMR) is standard in institutions. While there is not concern for legibility of notes and access to charts, there is an ease of copy and paste for daily notes. This may not lead to accurate portrayal of patient's status. Our purpose was to evaluate the use of copy and paste functions in daily notes of patients with injuries at high risk for complications.

Methods: IRB approval was obtained for a retrospective review. Inclusion criteria included patients aged 18 and older treated at our Level 1 Trauma Center after implementation of Epic Systems Corporation, Verona, WI, USA. Those who were surgically treated for bicondylar tibial plateau fracture, or open tibial shaft fracture type I or II were included. Manual comparison of daily progress to the previous day's note was carried out. Comparisons were made by evaluating the subjective, objective, and plan portions of the notes, coded nominally using 1 for a change 0 for remaining the same.

Results: 38 patients' charts were reviewed during a 10-month (July 2012-April 2013) period, and the average length of stay was 12 days (range: 2-35). A total of 418 notes were compared. The overall average of copied data was 85% daily. In the subjective portion, 85-97% of the data was copied on a daily basis and 71-92% of the data was copied within the objective portion of the notes. There were 15 medical complications necessitating intervention. Of these medical complications, the note the day after the complication reflected the event in 10 out of 15, or 70%, of the complications. Thus 5, or 30%, of the patients did not have notes reflecting the complication ( < 0.05). There were 7 complications related to the injuries: 4 cases of compartment syndrome, 1 case of foot drop, representing a change in neurologic status, an amputation, and a wound infection treated with antibiotics. Four of the 7 complications (57%) were not reflected in the notes the following day after the complication ( < 0.05). There were 54 planned returns to the operating room for procedures, yet 30 of the 54 (56%) notes regarding planned surgical procedures notes did not accurately report the plan for surgery ( < 0.05). There were 4 patients with unplanned trips to the operating room and 3 of the notes (75%) did not reflect this ( < 0.05). Twelve patients (32%) did not have notes accurately reflecting discharge plans and/or destination ( < 0.05).

Discussion/conclusion: Our results demonstrated widespread use of copy and paste function. We encourage evaluation of the charts by comparing notes to check and a plan to minimize this practice. There needs to be consistent note writing guidelines and appropriate templates used. This will decrease the inaccuracies in the chart and provide a clear picture of the patient, their injuries, and current status.