OBJECTIVE: Despite emerging evidence that electronic health records (EHRs) can improve the efficiency and quality of medical care, most physicians in office practice in the United States do not currently use an EHR. We sought to measure the correlates of EHR adoption. DESIGN: Mailed survey to a stratified random sample of all medical practices in Massachusetts in 2005, with one physician per practice randomly selected for survey. MEASUREMENTS: EHR adoption rates. RESULTS: The response rate was 71% (1345/1884). Overall, while 45% of physicians were using an EHR, EHRs were present in only 23% of practices. In multivariate analysis, practice size was strongly correlated with EHR adoption; 52% of practices with 7 or more physicians had an EHR, as compared with 14% of solo practices (adjusted odds ratio, 3.66; 95% confidence interval, 2.28-5.87). Hospital-based practices (adjusted odds ratio, 2.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.53-3.91) and practices that teach medical students or residents (adjusted odds ratio, 2.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.60-3.31) were more likely to have an EHR. The most frequently cited barriers to adoption were start-up financial costs (84%), ongoing financial costs (82%), and loss of productivity (81%). CONCLUSIONS: While almost half of physicians in Massachusetts are using an EHR, fewer than one in four practices in Massachusetts have adopted EHRs. Adoption rates are lower in smaller practices, those not affiliated with hospitals, and those that do not teach medical students or residents. Interventions to expand EHR use must address both financial and non-financial barriers, especially among smaller practices.
OBJECTIVE: Despite emerging evidence that electronic health records (EHRs) can improve the efficiency and quality of medical care, most physicians in office practice in the United States do not currently use an EHR. We sought to measure the correlates of EHR adoption. DESIGN: Mailed survey to a stratified random sample of all medical practices in Massachusetts in 2005, with one physician per practice randomly selected for survey. MEASUREMENTS: EHR adoption rates. RESULTS: The response rate was 71% (1345/1884). Overall, while 45% of physicians were using an EHR, EHRs were present in only 23% of practices. In multivariate analysis, practice size was strongly correlated with EHR adoption; 52% of practices with 7 or more physicians had an EHR, as compared with 14% of solo practices (adjusted odds ratio, 3.66; 95% confidence interval, 2.28-5.87). Hospital-based practices (adjusted odds ratio, 2.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.53-3.91) and practices that teach medical students or residents (adjusted odds ratio, 2.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.60-3.31) were more likely to have an EHR. The most frequently cited barriers to adoption were start-up financial costs (84%), ongoing financial costs (82%), and loss of productivity (81%). CONCLUSIONS: While almost half of physicians in Massachusetts are using an EHR, fewer than one in four practices in Massachusetts have adopted EHRs. Adoption rates are lower in smaller practices, those not affiliated with hospitals, and those that do not teach medical students or residents. Interventions to expand EHR use must address both financial and non-financial barriers, especially among smaller practices.
Authors: Jan Walker; Eric Pan; Douglas Johnston; Julia Adler-Milstein; David W Bates; Blackford Middleton Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2005 Jan-Jun Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Robert H Miller; Christopher West; Tiffany Martin Brown; Ida Sim; Chris Ganchoff Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2005 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Marjorie L Pearson; Shinyi Wu; Judith Schaefer; Amy E Bonomi; Stephen M Shortell; Peter J Mendel; Jill A Marsteller; Thomas A Louis; Mayde Rosen; Emmett B Keeler Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Eric G Poon; Ashish K Jha; Melissa Christino; Melissa M Honour; Rushika Fernandopulle; Blackford Middleton; Joseph Newhouse; Lucian Leape; David W Bates; David Blumenthal; Rainu Kaushal Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2006-01-05 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Eric J Thomas; J Bryan Sexton; Torsten B Neilands; Allan Frankel; Robert L Helmreich Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2005-04-11 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Marshall Fleurant; Rachel Kell; Chelsea Jenter; Lynn A Volk; Fang Zhang; David W Bates; Steven R Simon Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2012-01-16 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jennifer S Love; Adam Wright; Steven R Simon; Chelsea A Jenter; Christine S Soran; Lynn A Volk; David W Bates; Eric G Poon Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-12-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Thomas D Sequist; Theresa Cullen; Howard Hays; Maile M Taualii; Steven R Simon; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2007-01-09 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Li Zhou; Christine S Soran; Chelsea A Jenter; Lynn A Volk; E John Orav; David W Bates; Steven R Simon Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2009-04-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Steven R Simon; Christine S Soran; Rainu Kaushal; Chelsea A Jenter; Lynn A Volk; Elisabeth Burdick; Paul D Cleary; E John Orav; Eric G Poon; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2009-04-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Allan H Goroll; Steven R Simon; Micky Tripathi; Carl Ascenzo; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2008-10-24 Impact factor: 4.497