title: Clinician attitudes toward and use of electronic problem lists: a thematic analysis.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The clinical problem list is an important tool for clinical decision making, quality measurement and clinical decision support; however, problem lists are often incomplete and provider attitudes towards the problem list are poorly understood.
  
  
  METHODS
  An ethnographic study of healthcare providers conducted from April 2009 to January 2010 was carried out among academic and community outpatient medical practices in the Greater Boston area across a wide range of medical and surgical specialties. Attitudes towards the problem list were then analyzed using grounded theory methods.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Attitudes were variable, and dimensions of variations fit into nine themes: workflow, ownership and responsibility, relevance, uses, content, presentation, accuracy, alternatives, support/education and one cross-cutting theme of culture.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Significant variation was observed in clinician attitudes towards and use of the electronic patient problem list. Clearer guidance and best practices for problem list utilization are needed.
authors: Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. awright5@partners.org
authors: Adam
authors: A
authors: Wright
authors: Francine L
authors: FL
authors: Maloney
authors: Joshua C
authors: JC
authors: Feblowitz
references: BMJ. 1995 Jul 1;311(6996):42-5
references: 7613329
references: Health Serv Res. 1999 Dec;34(5 Pt 2):1101-18
references: 10591275
references: Qual Saf Health Care. 2002 Jun;11(2):148-52
references: 12448807
references: J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007 Jul-Aug;14(4):489-96
references: 17460131
references: Am J Manag Care. 2002 Jan;8(1):37-43
references: 11814171
references: J Med Internet Res. 2009 Aug 10;11(3):e31
references: 19674961
references: J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007 Mar-Apr;14(2):141-5
references: 17213487
references: J AHIMA. 2008 Jan;79(1):73-7
references: 18254409
references: Methods Inf Med. 2011;50(4):299-307
references: 21170469
references: J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Feb;20(2):143-7
references: 15836547
references: JAMA. 2005 Mar 9;293(10):1223-38
references: 15755945
references: Methods Inf Med. 2004;43(3):215-31
references: 15227551
references: N Engl J Med. 1968 Mar 21;278(12):652-7 concl
references: 5637250
references: BMJ. 2005 Apr 2;330(7494):765
references: 15767266
references: Ann Intern Med. 2006 May 16;144(10):742-52
references: 16702590