BACKGROUND: Conventional wisdom holds that older, busier clinicians who see complex patients are less likely to adopt and use novel electronic health record (EHR) functionality. METHODS: To compare the characteristics of clinicians who did and did not use novel EHR functionality, we conducted a retrospective analysis of the intervention arm of a randomized trial of new EHR-based tobacco treatment functionality. RESULTS: The novel functionality was used by 103 of 207 (50%) clinicians. Staff physicians were more likely than trainees to use the functionality (64% vs 37%; p<0.001). Clinicians who graduated more than 10 years previously were more likely to use the functionality than those who graduated less than 10 years previously (64% vs 42%; p<0.01). Clinicians with higher patient volumes were more likely to use the functionality (lowest quartile of number of patient visits, 25%; 2nd quartile, 38%; 3rd quartile, 65%; highest quartile, 71%; p<0.001). Clinicians who saw patients with more documented problems were more likely to use the functionality (lowest tertile of documented patient problems, 38%; 2nd tertile, 58%; highest tertile, 54%; p=0.04). In multivariable modeling, independent predictors of use were the number of patient visits (OR 1.2 per 100 additional patients; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.4) and number of documented problems (OR 2.9 per average additional problem; 95% CI 1.4 to 6.1). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to conventional wisdom, clinically busier physicians seeing patients with more documented problems were more likely to use novel EHR functionality.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Conventional wisdom holds that older, busier clinicians who see complex patients are less likely to adopt and use novel electronic health record (EHR) functionality. METHODS: To compare the characteristics of clinicians who did and did not use novel EHR functionality, we conducted a retrospective analysis of the intervention arm of a randomized trial of new EHR-based tobacco treatment functionality. RESULTS: The novel functionality was used by 103 of 207 (50%) clinicians. Staff physicians were more likely than trainees to use the functionality (64% vs 37%; p<0.001). Clinicians who graduated more than 10 years previously were more likely to use the functionality than those who graduated less than 10 years previously (64% vs 42%; p<0.01). Clinicians with higher patient volumes were more likely to use the functionality (lowest quartile of number of patient visits, 25%; 2nd quartile, 38%; 3rd quartile, 65%; highest quartile, 71%; p<0.001). Clinicians who saw patients with more documented problems were more likely to use the functionality (lowest tertile of documented patient problems, 38%; 2nd tertile, 58%; highest tertile, 54%; p=0.04). In multivariable modeling, independent predictors of use were the number of patient visits (OR 1.2 per 100 additional patients; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.4) and number of documented problems (OR 2.9 per average additional problem; 95% CI 1.4 to 6.1). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to conventional wisdom, clinically busier physicians seeing patients with more documented problems were more likely to use novel EHR functionality.
Authors: Jeffrey A Linder; Jeffrey L Schnipper; Ruslana Tsurikova; Tony Yu; Lynn A Volk; Andrea J Melnikas; Matvey B Palchuk; Maya Olsha-Yehiav; Blackford Middleton Journal: Inform Prim Care Date: 2009
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: Salomeh Keyhani; Paul L Hebert; Joseph S Ross; Alex Federman; Carolyn W Zhu; Albert L Siu Journal: Med Care Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Ryan Gertz; B Jack Longley; Daniel Bennett; Erik Ranheim; Victoria Rajamanickam; Tisha Kawahara; Justin Endo Journal: J Cutan Pathol Date: 2015-05-20 Impact factor: 1.587
Authors: Jennifer M Schindler-Ruwisch; Lorien C Abroms; Steven L Bernstein; Christina L Heminger Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: F van Stiphout; J E F Zwart-van Rijkom; J E C M Aarts; H Koffijberg; E Klarenbeek-deJonge; M Krulder; K C B Roes; A C G Egberts; E W M T ter Braak Journal: Trials Date: 2015-05-22 Impact factor: 2.279