Practice Recommendation | Evidence Rating* | References |
---|---|---|
1. There is insufficient high-quality evidence to support the claim that medical scribes affect patient satisfaction. | B | 26–28 |
2. There is insufficient high-quality evidence to support the claim that medical scribes affect physician satisfaction. | B | 26, 29 |
3. There is insufficient high-quality evidence to support the claim that medical scribes affect physician productivity. | B | 25, 27, 29 |
4. There is insufficient high-quality evidence to support the claim that medical scribes affect revenue. | B | 27 |
5. There is insufficient high-quality evidence to support the claim that medical scribes affect time-related efficiencies. | B | 25, 27–29 |
6. There is insufficient high-quality evidence to support the claim that medical scribes affect the quality of the patient–clinician interaction. | B | 27 |
↵* A, recommendation based on consistent and good-quality, patient-oriented evidence; B, recommendation based on inconsistent or limited-quality, patient-oriented evidence; C, recommendation based on consensus, usual practice, expert opinion, disease-oriented evidence, and case series for studies of diagnosis, treatment, prevention, or screening. See Ebell et al30 for more information about the strength of recommendation taxonomy evidence rating system.