BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) might reduce medical liability claims and potentially justify premium credits from liability insurers, but the evidence is limited. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association between EHR use and medical liability claims in a population of office-based physicians, including claims that could potentially be directly prevented by features available in EHRs ("EHR-sensitive" claims). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of medical liability claims and analysis of claim abstracts. PARTICIPANTS: The 26 % of Colorado office-based physicians insured through COPIC Insurance Company who responded to a survey on EHR use (894 respondents out of 3,502 invitees). MAIN MEASURES: Claims incidence rate ratio (IRR); prevalence of "EHR-sensitive" claims. KEY RESULTS: 473 physicians (53 % of respondents) used an office-based EHR. After adjustment for sex, birth cohort, specialty, practice setting and use of an EHR in settings other than an office, IRR for all claims was not significantly different between EHR users and non-users (0.88, 95 % CI 0.52-1.46; p = 0.61), or for users after EHR implementation as compared to before (0.73, 95 % CI 0.41-1.29; p = 0.28). Of 1,569 claim abstracts reviewed, 3 % were judged "Plausibly EHR-sensitive," 82 % "Unlikely EHR-sensitive," and 15 % "Unable to determine." EHR-sensitive claims occurred in six out of 633 non-users and two out of 251 EHR users. Incidence rate ratios were 0.01 for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Colorado physicians using office-based EHRs did not have significantly different rates of liability claims than non-EHR users; nor were rates different for EHR users before and after EHR implementation. The lack of significant effect may be due to a low prevalence of EHR-sensitive claims. Further research on EHR use and medical liability across a larger population of physicians is warranted.
BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) might reduce medical liability claims and potentially justify premium credits from liability insurers, but the evidence is limited. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association between EHR use and medical liability claims in a population of office-based physicians, including claims that could potentially be directly prevented by features available in EHRs ("EHR-sensitive" claims). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of medical liability claims and analysis of claim abstracts. PARTICIPANTS: The 26 % of Colorado office-based physicians insured through COPIC Insurance Company who responded to a survey on EHR use (894 respondents out of 3,502 invitees). MAIN MEASURES: Claims incidence rate ratio (IRR); prevalence of "EHR-sensitive" claims. KEY RESULTS: 473 physicians (53 % of respondents) used an office-based EHR. After adjustment for sex, birth cohort, specialty, practice setting and use of an EHR in settings other than an office, IRR for all claims was not significantly different between EHR users and non-users (0.88, 95 % CI 0.52-1.46; p = 0.61), or for users after EHR implementation as compared to before (0.73, 95 % CI 0.41-1.29; p = 0.28). Of 1,569 claim abstracts reviewed, 3 % were judged "Plausibly EHR-sensitive," 82 % "Unlikely EHR-sensitive," and 15 % "Unable to determine." EHR-sensitive claims occurred in six out of 633 non-users and two out of 251 EHR users. Incidence rate ratios were 0.01 for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Colorado physicians using office-based EHRs did not have significantly different rates of liability claims than non-EHR users; nor were rates different for EHR users before and after EHR implementation. The lack of significant effect may be due to a low prevalence of EHR-sensitive claims. Further research on EHR use and medical liability across a larger population of physicians is warranted.
Authors: Amit X Garg; Neill K J Adhikari; Heather McDonald; M Patricia Rosas-Arellano; P J Devereaux; Joseph Beyene; Justina Sam; R Brian Haynes Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-03-09 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Richard Hillestad; James Bigelow; Anthony Bower; Federico Girosi; Robin Meili; Richard Scoville; Roger Taylor Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2005 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: David Dorr; Laura M Bonner; Amy N Cohen; Rebecca S Shoai; Ruth Perrin; Edmund Chaney; Alexander S Young Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2007-01-09 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Yong Y Han; Joseph A Carcillo; Shekhar T Venkataraman; Robert S B Clark; R Scott Watson; Trung C Nguyen; Hülya Bayir; Richard A Orr Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Tiffani J Bright; Anthony Wong; Ravi Dhurjati; Erin Bristow; Lori Bastian; Remy R Coeytaux; Gregory Samsa; Vic Hasselblad; John W Williams; Michael D Musty; Liz Wing; Amy S Kendrick; Gillian D Sanders; David Lobach Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Ross Koppel; Joshua P Metlay; Abigail Cohen; Brian Abaluck; A Russell Localio; Stephen E Kimmel; Brian L Strom Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-03-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Simon P Rowland; J Edward Fitzgerald; Matthew Lungren; Elizabeth Hsieh Lee; Zach Harned; Alison H McGregor Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2022-10-20
Authors: Michael F Chiang; Sarah Read-Brown; Daniel C Tu; Dongseok Choi; David S Sanders; Thomas S Hwang; Steven Bailey; Daniel J Karr; Elizabeth Cottle; John C Morrison; David J Wilson; Thomas R Yackel Journal: Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc Date: 2013-09