OBJECTIVES: To identify patterns of use of computerized clinical reminders (CCRs) across an integrated healthcare system and describe institutional factors associated with their implementation. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: At a national electronic health record (EHR) meeting, we surveyed 261 participants from 104 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) healthcare facilities regarding the number and types of CCRs available at each facility. Potential explanatory measures included perceived utility and ease of use of CCRs, training and personnel support for computer use, EHR functionalities, and performance data feedback to providers at each facility. RESULTS: The number of conditions with CCRs in use at a facility ranged from 1 to 15; most reported implementation of reminders for 10 of the 15 conditions surveyed. The most commonly implemented CCRs, used in more than 85% of facilities, were for conditions with VHA national performance measures (eg, tobacco cessation, immunizations, diabetes mellitus). The least commonly implemented CCRs were for post-deployment health evaluation and management, medically unexplained symptoms, and erectile dysfunction. Facilities that had implemented greater numbers of clinical reminders had providers who reported greater ease of use and utility of the reminders (P= .01). CONCLUSIONS: VHA facilities vary markedly in their implementation of CCRs. This effect may be partly explained by greater incorporation of clinical reminders for conditions with performance measures. Further study is needed to determine how to best implement clinical reminders and the institutional factors important in their use.
OBJECTIVES: To identify patterns of use of computerized clinical reminders (CCRs) across an integrated healthcare system and describe institutional factors associated with their implementation. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: At a national electronic health record (EHR) meeting, we surveyed 261 participants from 104 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) healthcare facilities regarding the number and types of CCRs available at each facility. Potential explanatory measures included perceived utility and ease of use of CCRs, training and personnel support for computer use, EHR functionalities, and performance data feedback to providers at each facility. RESULTS: The number of conditions with CCRs in use at a facility ranged from 1 to 15; most reported implementation of reminders for 10 of the 15 conditions surveyed. The most commonly implemented CCRs, used in more than 85% of facilities, were for conditions with VHA national performance measures (eg, tobacco cessation, immunizations, diabetes mellitus). The least commonly implemented CCRs were for post-deployment health evaluation and management, medically unexplained symptoms, and erectile dysfunction. Facilities that had implemented greater numbers of clinical reminders had providers who reported greater ease of use and utility of the reminders (P= .01). CONCLUSIONS: VHA facilities vary markedly in their implementation of CCRs. This effect may be partly explained by greater incorporation of clinical reminders for conditions with performance measures. Further study is needed to determine how to best implement clinical reminders and the institutional factors important in their use.
Authors: Cameron G Shultz; Jean M Malouin; Lee A Green; Melissa Plegue; Grant M Greenberg Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Karen H Seal; Daniel Bertenthal; Shira Maguen; Kristian Gima; Ann Chu; Charles R Marmar Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2008-02-28 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Annette Moxey; Jane Robertson; David Newby; Isla Hains; Margaret Williamson; Sallie-Anne Pearson Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2010 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Constance H Fung; Jerry S Tsai; Armine Lulejian; Peter Glassman; Emily Patterson; Brad N Doebbeling; Steven M Asch Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Tim A Holt; Margaret Thorogood; Frances Griffiths; Stephen Munday; Tim Friede; David Stables Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Mehmet Top; Ali Yilmaz; Erdem Karabulut; Ochieng George Otieno; Melahat Saylam; Sevgi Bakır; Sümbül Top Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2015-05-09 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: Marita G Titler; Keela Herr; John M Brooks; Xian-Jin Xie; Gail Ardery; Margo L Schilling; J Lawrence Marsh; Linda Q Everett; William R Clarke Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 3.402