Back

Development and validation of an algorithm to identify front-line clinicians using EHR audit log data

Baratta, L. R.; Wang, J.; Osweiler, B. W.; Lew, D.; Eiden, E.; Kannampallil, T. G.; Lou, S. S.

2026-02-16 health informatics
10.64898/2026.02.13.26346268 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundInterprofessional teams are central to high quality patient care. However, identifying the clinician primarily responsible for a patient requires labor-intensive methodologies. Although electronic health record (EHR) audit logs offer a scalable alternative, its use for identifying frontline clinicians is underdeveloped. ObjectiveTo develop and validate an algorithm utilizing EHR audit logs to identify the primary frontline clinician per patient day of an encounter and to describe care continuity patterns. MethodThis was a cross-sectional cohort study of adult inpatient medicine encounters at 12 hospitals in a single health system using a shared EHR. Admissions from February 1, 2023-April 30, 2023, with length of stay of at least 3 days and without an intensive care unit admission were included. Four algorithm iterations were designed to identify the attending physician, resident, or advanced practice provider primarily responsible for patient care on each patient-day. Performance of each algorithm was compared with manual chart review on 1,401 patient-days from 246 randomly sampled patient encounters. Accuracy between an algorithm and the chart review standard was compared using McNemars test with Bonferroni adjusted p-values. ResultsThe best performing algorithm correctly identified the primary clinician responsible for patient care on 91% of patient-days (1,268/1,401), outperforming the naive approach using frequency of actions (78% accuracy, 1,098/1,401, p<0.001). Algorithm errors were attributable to misidentified specialty and ambiguity on days with transitions of care or shared responsibilities between clinicians. The best performing algorithm was applied to the entire cohort (5,801 encounters and 34,001 patient-days) where it identified attending physicians, resident physicians, and APPs as the frontline clinician for 26,750 (79%), 3,106 (9%), and 4,145 (12%) of patient days respectively. Each encounter had a median of 1 (IQR 0-2) handoff between frontline clinicians. ConclusionsWe developed a scalable, audit log-based algorithm to determine the front-line clinician with excellent accuracy compared with manual chart review.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
27.6%
2
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.3%
3
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
6.4%
4
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
5
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.3%
6
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
7
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
8
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.1%
9
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
10
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.1%
11
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
12
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.9%
13
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
14
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
15
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.3%
16
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 64%
1.3%
17
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.2%
18
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 61%
1.1%
19
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
20
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
21
Preventive Medicine Reports
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
22
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
23
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
24
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
25
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
26
CMAJ Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%
27
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.6%