I am not alone in this thought, and several of our partners have refused to even entertain scribes as an option in our ED because of the documentation risk and medicolegal liability in our state. Yes, they help "move the meat" and may help with patient satisfaction (when used unscrupulously to elicit survey concerns in the department), but at the end of the day, they are untrained, non-clinical entities who construct the most critical evidence of your medicolegal protection. I would much rather have physicians who are skilled at constructing detailed notes on their own, clearly detail why decisions were or were not made, and also cite current literate in their documentation. Scribes do not do this, and we don't mind working harder to communicate what we need in real time to accurately reflect the care we provide and the decisions we make.
One of my colleagues referred to scribes as "crack", because once ED physicians get used to them, they cannot go back to the days without them, and that is where the quality of our work (as defined in the chart) suffers. Over time, we become dependent on scribes, and our record becomes an after thought that "someone else will do." There are benefits to having scribes for basic documentation, but the medical record is a very detailed document that varies from patient to patient. I mean no offense to those residents who do use scribes, but I urge caution to them to be mindful of what is actually being written about your care. Scribes can take a weak resident and make them weaker. They can take a very strong resident and make them more efficient, but in either case, they are no substitute for articulating the nuances of medical care.
Scribes are becoming used with more frequency nationwide, but they are further detracting from our specialty and making emergency physicians even more of a commodity than they already are. In the coming years, holding group contracts will become more difficult than ever, and as an emergency physician, you are easily replaced by the next group who delivers the fastest and cheapest care (defined as "quality" by those business-type administrators who renew your contracts). At the end of the day, even some residency programs are private groups who are feeling the same pressure as those in the community.
The groups that stay are liked by the medical staff, meet their metrics and are therefore liked by administration, and expose the hospital to the lowest liability. Residents don't think about these things much at all, and they shouldn't have to as much because they should be focused on learning how to be emergency physicians. In my mind, if a resident doesn't have the passion to learn how to protect their hard work and take complete ownership of their medical treatment at the peak of their training and when they should be cognizant of how vulnerable they are to risk, these qualities will erode even further a couple of years out of their training when they are contributing to a group.
These may be the same residents who expect to only work 100 hour months, no nights, no weekends, and earn the same salary as a full-time provider...
Strong Statement? perhaps. I'm more concerned with the longevity of our group and as I have said, I am not alone.