Literature DB >> 23842938

The impact of electronic health records on people with diabetes in three different emergency departments.

Stuart M Speedie1, Young-Taek Park, Jing Du, Nawanan Theera-Ampornpunt, Barry A Bershow, Raymond A Gensinger, Daniel T Routhe, Donald P Connelly.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if electronic health records (EHR) with prior clinical information have observable effects for patients with diabetes presenting to emergency departments (ED), we examined measures of quality and resource utilization.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective observational studies of patients in three ED (A=5510; B=4393; C=3324) were conducted comparing patients with prior information in the EHR to those without such information. Differences with respect to hospitalization, mortality, length of stay (LOS), and numbers of ED orders for tests, procedures and medications were examined after adjusting for age, gender, race, marital status, comorbidities and for acuity level within each ED.
RESULTS: There were 7% fewer laboratory test orders at one ED and 3% fewer at another; fewer diagnostic procedures were performed at two of the sites. At one site 36% fewer medications were ordered. The odds of being hospitalized were lower for EHR patients at one site and hospital LOS was shorter at two of the sites. EHR patient ED LOS was 18% longer at one site. There was no demonstrable impact of an EHR on mortality. Results varied in magnitude and direction by site. DISCUSSION: The pattern of significant results varied by ED but tended to reveal reduced utilization and better outcomes for patients although EHR patients' ED LOS was longer at one site.
CONCLUSIONS: The presence of prior information in an EHR may be a valuable adjunct in the care of diabetes patients in ED settings but the pattern of impact may vary from ED to ED.

Entities:  

Keywords:  diabetes; electronic health records; emergency department; evaluation; health outcome assessment

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23842938      PMCID: PMC3957391          DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001804

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc        ISSN: 1067-5027            Impact factor:   4.497


  24 in total

1.  Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform?

Authors:  W G Manning; J Mullahy
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 2.  Clinical information systems: instant ubiquitous clinical data for error reduction and improved clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Craig F Feied; Jonathan A Handler; Mark S Smith; Michael Gillam; Meera Kanhouwa; Todd Rothenhaus; Keith Conover; Tony Shannon
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 3.451

3.  Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases.

Authors:  R A Deyo; D C Cherkin; M A Ciol
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.

Authors:  M E Charlson; P Pompei; K L Ales; C R MacKenzie
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

5.  Confounding and Simpson's paradox.

Authors:  S A Julious; M A Mullee
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-12-03

Review 6.  Approaches to patient health information exchange and their impact on emergency medicine.

Authors:  Jason S Shapiro; Joseph Kannry; Mark Lipton; Eric Goldberg; Paul Conocenti; Susan Stuard; Brian M Wyatt; Gilad Kuperman
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2006-06-06       Impact factor: 5.721

7.  How are health professionals using health information exchange systems? Measuring usage for evaluation and system improvement.

Authors:  Joshua R Vest; 'jon Sean Jasperson
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2011-11-30       Impact factor: 4.460

8.  Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data.

Authors:  Hude Quan; Vijaya Sundararajan; Patricia Halfon; Andrew Fong; Bernard Burnand; Jean-Christophe Luthi; L Duncan Saunders; Cynthia A Beck; Thomas E Feasby; William A Ghali
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Reduction of redundant laboratory orders by access to computerized patient records.

Authors:  T O Stair
Journal:  J Emerg Med       Date:  1998 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.484

10.  Prevalence of information gaps in the emergency department and the effect on patient outcomes.

Authors:  Andrew Stiell; Alan J Forster; Ian G Stiell; Carl van Walraven
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2003-11-11       Impact factor: 8.262

View more
  4 in total

1.  How is the electronic health record being used? Use of EHR data to assess physician-level variability in technology use.

Authors:  Jessica S Ancker; Lisa M Kern; Alison Edwards; Sarah Nosal; Daniel M Stein; Diane Hauser; Rainu Kaushal
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2014-06-09       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  Electronic health record phenotyping improves detection and screening of type 2 diabetes in the general United States population: A cross-sectional, unselected, retrospective study.

Authors:  Ariana E Anderson; Wesley T Kerr; April Thames; Tong Li; Jiayang Xiao; Mark S Cohen
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2015-12-17       Impact factor: 6.317

3.  Count data models for outpatient health services utilisation.

Authors:  Nurul Salwana Abu Bakar; Jabrullah Ab Hamid; Mohd Shaiful Jefri Mohd Nor Sham; Mohd Nor Sham; Anis Syakira Jailani
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2022-10-05       Impact factor: 4.612

4.  [Information on medical history in the emergency department : Influence on therapy and diagnostic decisions].

Authors:  M Lorsbach; A Gillessen; K Revering; C Juhra
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2020-02-10       Impact factor: 0.840

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.