Electronic health records (EHRs) and digital workflows were conceived to modernize and streamline cancer care, but for clinicians practicing on the ground, administrative demands have ballooned into an overwhelming daily burden. In this episode of Oncology Unfiltered, Melissa Cutrona, Co-Founder and General Manager of i3 Health and Oncology Data Advisor, sits down with Editor in Chief Matthew Hadfield, DO, Medical Oncologist and Assistant Professor of Medicine at Brown University Legorreta Cancer Center, to explore the personal, clinical, and operational ramifications of modern medical documentation. Together, they examine how health systems can return clinical attention to where it belongs: direct, compassionate patient care.

Balancing Detail With Cognitive Overload

Reflecting on the evolution of clinical practice since beginning rotations a decade ago, Dr. Hadfield noted that chart length and regulatory checkboxes have grown exponentially due to complex billing and reimbursement mandates. While oncology inherently demands extensive recordkeeping—ranging from genomic driver alterations and prior-line responses to subtle immune-related toxicities—excessive documentation often distracts from the core mission of medicine.

Dr. Hadfield shared that he experiences "a love-hate relationship with documentation, because on the one hand, I spend more time writing notes about patients than I do talking to them in exam rooms, which is the exact opposite of why I think any of us went into medicine." He warned that when crucial molecular data or toxicities become "buried in a note somewhere and you can't find it or someone didn't document it, it could actually be hard to manage those patients."

The Hardware Shield and the Lost Art of Examination

Beyond eating into precious time, digital charting alters the physical dynamics of the examination room. Many clinicians feel compelled to type during visits, with laptop screens or mobile computer carts sometimes posing unintentional barriers between themselves and their patients.

Dr. Hadfield strives to maintain eye contact and clinical presence by keeping technology out of direct conversations, explaining, "my own personal philosophy is that I will be distracted if I have electronic medical records open while I'm talking to a patient, because when you open that record, you’re not just looking at their chart; you also have secure messages that are coming in about other patients from nurses and other team members." Intersplicing visits with pop-up alerts and frantic typing risks signaling disinterest to vulnerable patients, even though delaying chart completion until after hours carries its own heavy cognitive penalty.

The Double-Edged Sword of Ambient AI Scribes

To combat documentation overload, health systems are rapidly piloting ambient AI scribes capable of capturing clinical conversations and drafting progress notes. While acknowledging that these tools could drastically alleviate clerical work, Dr. Hadfield emphasized a key caveat: documentation has traditionally served as the dedicated space where physicians synthesize complex data.

As he cautioned, "oftentimes when people think about notes, they just think about the administrative burden that they cause. But there is a huge component, throughout training and subspecialty training and being an attending physician, where the writing of your note is really when you're synthesizing your thoughts." Allowing technology to bypass that clinical reflection risks turning clinicians into passive reviewers rather than active thinkers, making it essential that AI serve as an adjunct to critical thought rather than a total replacement.

Medicolegal Pressure and Systemic Redesign

The emotional weight of cancer care is increasingly intensified by medicolegal scrutiny, with high-profile malpractice litigation placing intense focus on chart accuracy. The pressure to avoid errors while completing 15 or more complex notes a day creates significant anxiety.

Compounding the issue are fragmented software designs and frequent interface updates that leave providers frustrated. Addressing what systemic reforms he would prioritize, Dr. Hadfield urged healthcare leadership to prioritize standardization. Rather than constantly rolling out new tabs and interface layers, health systems must simplify workflows, so technology facilitates patient care rather than complicating it.

Conclusion

While the oncology documentation burden presents undeniable daily challenges, it also highlights an unprecedented opportunity to reimagine how clinical technology serves both providers and patients. Emerging innovations, from ambient AI scribes to collaborative workflow standardization, offer a tangible pathway toward stripping away clerical burdens and restoring the sanctity of the patient encounter. By adopting these assistive tools while preserving clinical reflection and championing simpler, more intuitive digital systems, the oncology community can successfully reclaim the bedside—empowering clinicians to dedicate their time, energy, and empathy to what matters most.

Key Takeaways

The modern oncology record is distorted by billing, coding, and compliance mandates, frequently requiring oncologists to spend more time typing notes than engaging directly with patients.
Clinical notes that stretch on for pages paradoxically obscure vital medical information, such as actionable genomic mutations and past immunotherapy toxicities.
Keeping computers active during clinical visits introduces interpersonal and cognitive distractions, disrupting empathy and making patients feel unheard.
While ambient AI scribes may reduce clerical data entry, providers must preserve the active critical thinking and diagnostic reflection that traditional note synthesis provides.
Practice leadership must combat software bloat by consolidating fragmented EHR workflows and reducing redundant documentation requirements to protect clinicians from burnout.

The Documentation Burden: When Clicking Boxes Competes With Patient Care