Table 1 Quantitative descriptive analysis of physician progress notes

Mean number of notes per day (per patient)

2.1 [1.9–2.3]

2.4 [2.2–2.6]

2.8 [2.6–3.0]

1.8 [1.6–2.0]

p < 0.001

Handwritten

97% [92–100%]

93% [87–100%]

93% [87–100%]

100% [94–100%]

p < 0.001

Legible

87% [78–96%]

86% [77–95%]

87% [78–96%]

87% [78–96%]

p = 0.458

Date included

95% [92–98%]

95% [92–98%]

96% [93–99%]

95% [92–98%]

p = 0.778

Time-stamped

49% [40–58%]

51% [41–61%]

54% [44–64%]

46% [36–56%]

p = 0.006

Signature/name

48% [34–62%]

48% [34–62%]

48% [34–62%]

47% [33–60%]

p = 0.630

Mean number of lines per note (per patient)

17.6 [15.9–19.3]

21.1 [19.1–23.1]

19.6 [17.6–21.6]

15.0 [13.1–17.0]

p < 0.001

ᅟPatient history^b

10% [7--13%]

11% [9–14%]

11% [8–13%]

7% [5–10%]

p < 0.001

ᅟPatient data^b

59% [54–64%]

57% [52–62%]

58% [53–63%]

61% [56–66%]

p < 0.001

ᅟPatient care plan^b

31% [26–37%]

32% [26–37%]

32% [26–38%]

31% [26–37%]

p = 0.701

Communication^c

9% [7–10%]

7% [5–9%]

8% [6–10%]

9% [7–11%]

p = 0.071

ᅟProvider-provider^d

56% [50–62%]

64% [56–73%]

62% [52–72%]

51% [44–59%]

p = 0.012

ᅟProvider-family^d

23% [16–29%]

23% [15–31%]

22% [12–31%]

22% [15–29%]

p = 0.851

ᅟProvider-patient^d

38% [33–43%]

29% [20–38%]

36% [26–46%]

43% [35–50%]

p = 0.007