OBJECTIVE: Efforts to promote adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) have focused on primary care physicians, who are now expected to exchange data electronically with other providers, including specialists. However, the variation of EHR adoption among specialists is underexplored. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study to determine the association between physician specialty and the prevalence of EHR adoption, and a retrospective serial cross-sectional study to determine the association of physician specialty and the rate of EHR adoption over time. We used the 2005-2009 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. We considered fourteen specialties, and four definitions of EHR adoption (any EHR, basic EHR, full EHR, and a novel definition of EHR sophistication). We used multivariable logistic regression, and adjusted for several covariates (geography, practice characteristics, revenue characteristics, physician degree). RESULTS: Physician specialty was significantly associated with EHR adoption, regardless of the EHR definition, after adjusting for covariates. Psychiatrists, dermatologists, pediatricians, ophthalmologists, and general surgeons were significantly less likely to adopt EHRs, compared to the reference group of family medicine/general practitioners. After adjustment for covariates, these specialties were 44-94% less likely to adopt EHRs than the reference group. EHR adoption increased in all specialties, by approximately 40% per year. The rate of EHR adoption over time did not significantly vary by specialty. CONCLUSIONS: Although EHR adoption is increasing in all specialties, adoption varies widely by specialty. In order to insure each individual's network of providers can electronically share data, widespread adoption of EHRs is needed across all specialties.
OBJECTIVE: Efforts to promote adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) have focused on primary care physicians, who are now expected to exchange data electronically with other providers, including specialists. However, the variation of EHR adoption among specialists is underexplored. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study to determine the association between physician specialty and the prevalence of EHR adoption, and a retrospective serial cross-sectional study to determine the association of physician specialty and the rate of EHR adoption over time. We used the 2005-2009 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. We considered fourteen specialties, and four definitions of EHR adoption (any EHR, basic EHR, full EHR, and a novel definition of EHR sophistication). We used multivariable logistic regression, and adjusted for several covariates (geography, practice characteristics, revenue characteristics, physician degree). RESULTS: Physician specialty was significantly associated with EHR adoption, regardless of the EHR definition, after adjusting for covariates. Psychiatrists, dermatologists, pediatricians, ophthalmologists, and general surgeons were significantly less likely to adopt EHRs, compared to the reference group of family medicine/general practitioners. After adjustment for covariates, these specialties were 44-94% less likely to adopt EHRs than the reference group. EHR adoption increased in all specialties, by approximately 40% per year. The rate of EHR adoption over time did not significantly vary by specialty. CONCLUSIONS: Although EHR adoption is increasing in all specialties, adoption varies widely by specialty. In order to insure each individual's network of providers can electronically share data, widespread adoption of EHRs is needed across all specialties.
Keywords:
Electronic health records; United States; ambulatory care; health policy; specialization
Authors: Steven R Simon; Madeline L McCarthy; Rainu Kaushal; Chelsea A Jenter; Lynn A Volk; Eric G Poon; Kevin C Yee; E John Orav; Deborah H Williams; David W Bates Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2006
Authors: Catherine M DesRoches; Eric G Campbell; Sowmya R Rao; Karen Donelan; Timothy G Ferris; Ashish Jha; Rainu Kaushal; Douglas E Levy; Sara Rosenbaum; Alexandra E Shields; David Blumenthal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-06-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michael F Chiang; Michael V Boland; James W Margolis; Flora Lum; Michael D Abramoff; P Lloyd Hildebrand Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2008-05-16 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Travis K Redd; Julie W Doberne; Daniel Lattin; Thomas R Yackel; Carl O Eriksson; Vishnu Mohan; Jeffrey A Gold; Joan S Ash; Michael F Chiang Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2015-11-05
Authors: Michele C Lim; Michael V Boland; Colin A McCannel; Arvind Saini; Michael F Chiang; K David Epley; Flora Lum Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Travis K Redd; Sarah Read-Brown; Dongseok Choi; Thomas R Yackel; Daniel C Tu; Michael F Chiang Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2014-11-14 Impact factor: 1.220
Authors: Farifteh F Duffy; Laura J Fochtmann; Diana E Clarke; Keila Barber; Seung-Hee Hong; Joel Yager; Eve K Mościcki; Robert M Plovnick Journal: Psychiatr Q Date: 2016-09
Authors: Brian C Stagg; Joshua D Stein; Felipe A Medeiros; Barbara Wirostko; Alan Crandall; M Elizabeth Hartnett; Mollie Cummins; Alan Morris; Rachel Hess; Kensaku Kawamoto Journal: Ophthalmol Glaucoma Date: 2020-08-15