PURPOSE: Care of patients with diabetes requires management of complex clinical information, which may be improved by the use of an electronic medical record (EMR); however, the actual relationship between EMR usage and diabetes care quality in primary care settings is not well understood. We assessed the relationship between EMR usage and diabetes care quality in a sample of family medicine practices. METHODS: We conducted cross-sectional analyses of baseline data from 50 practices participating in a practice improvement study. Between April 2003 and December 2004 chart auditors reviewed a random sample of medical records from patients with diabetes in each practice for adherence to guidelines for diabetes processes of care, treatment, and achievement of intermediate outcomes. Practice leaders provided medical record system information. We conducted multivariate analyses of the relationship between EMR usage and diabetes care adjusting for potential practice- and patient-level confounders and practice-level clustering. RESULTS: Diabetes care quality in all practices showed room for improvement; however, after adjustment, patient care in the 37 practices not using an EMR was more likely to meet guidelines for process (odds ratio [OR], 2.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-3.57) treatment (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.07-2.60), and intermediate outcomes (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.49-4.82) than in the 13 practices using an EMR. CONCLUSIONS: The use of an EMR in primary care practices is insufficient for insuring high-quality diabetes care. Efforts to expand EMR use should focus not only on improving technology but also on developing methods for implementing and integrating this technology into practice reality.
PURPOSE: Care of patients with diabetes requires management of complex clinical information, which may be improved by the use of an electronic medical record (EMR); however, the actual relationship between EMR usage and diabetes care quality in primary care settings is not well understood. We assessed the relationship between EMR usage and diabetes care quality in a sample of family medicine practices. METHODS: We conducted cross-sectional analyses of baseline data from 50 practices participating in a practice improvement study. Between April 2003 and December 2004 chart auditors reviewed a random sample of medical records from patients with diabetes in each practice for adherence to guidelines for diabetes processes of care, treatment, and achievement of intermediate outcomes. Practice leaders provided medical record system information. We conducted multivariate analyses of the relationship between EMR usage and diabetes care adjusting for potential practice- and patient-level confounders and practice-level clustering. RESULTS:Diabetes care quality in all practices showed room for improvement; however, after adjustment, patient care in the 37 practices not using an EMR was more likely to meet guidelines for process (odds ratio [OR], 2.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-3.57) treatment (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.07-2.60), and intermediate outcomes (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.49-4.82) than in the 13 practices using an EMR. CONCLUSIONS: The use of an EMR in primary care practices is insufficient for insuring high-quality diabetes care. Efforts to expand EMR use should focus not only on improving technology but also on developing methods for implementing and integrating this technology into practice reality.
Authors: Elizabeth A McGlynn; Steven M Asch; John Adams; Joan Keesey; Jennifer Hicks; Alison DeCristofaro; Eve A Kerr Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-06-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Eve A Kerr; Dylan M Smith; Mary M Hogan; Sarah L Krein; Leonard Pogach; Timothy P Hofer; Rodney A Hayward Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Improv Date: 2002-10
Authors: Cyrille Delpierre; Lise Cuzin; Judith Fillaux; Muriel Alvarez; Patrice Massip; Thierry Lang Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Victor M Montori; Sean F Dinneen; Colum A Gorman; Bruce R Zimmerman; Robert A Rizza; Susan S Bjornsen; Erin M Green; Sandra C Bryant; Steven A Smith Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: James C Martin; Robert F Avant; Marjorie A Bowman; John R Bucholtz; John R Dickinson; Kenneth L Evans; Larry A Green; Douglas E Henley; Warren A Jones; Samuel C Matheny; Janice E Nevin; Sandra L Panther; James C Puffer; Richard G Roberts; Denise V Rodgers; Roger A Sherwood; Kurt C Stange; Cynthia W Weber Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2004 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Michelle Greiver; Jan Barnsley; Richard H Glazier; Rahim Moineddin; Bart J Harvey Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: E Melinda Mahabee-Gittens; Cinnamon A Dixon; Lisa M Vaughn; Elena M Duma; Judith S Gordon Journal: J Emerg Nurs Date: 2013-09-09 Impact factor: 1.836
Authors: Jesse C Crosson; Pamela A Ohman-Strickland; Deborah J Cohen; Elizabeth C Clark; Benjamin F Crabtree Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2012 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Asia Friedman; Jesse C Crosson; Jenna Howard; Elizabeth C Clark; Maria Pellerano; Ben-Tzion Karsh; Benjamin Crabtree; Carlos Roberto Jaén; Deborah J Cohen Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-07-31 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jesse C Crosson; Nicole Isaacson; Debra Lancaster; Emily A McDonald; Anthony J Schueth; Barbara DiCicco-Bloom; Joshua L Newman; C Jason Wang; Douglas S Bell Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Robert L Phillips; Andrew W Bazemore; Jennifer E DeVoe; Thomas J Weida; Alex H Krist; Michael F Dulin; Frances E Biagioli Journal: Fam Med Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: M Kantor; A Wright; M Burton; G Fraser; M Krall; S Maviglia; N Mohammed-Rajput; L Simonaitis; F Sonnenberg; B Middleton Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2011-08-03 Impact factor: 2.342