Jessica S Ancker1, Lisa M Kern1, Alison Edwards1, Sarah Nosal2, Daniel M Stein3, Diane Hauser2, Rainu Kaushal1. 1. Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Center for Healthcare Informatics and Policy, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, USA Health Information Technology Evaluation Collaborative (HITEC), New York, USA. 2. Institute for Family Health, New York, USA. 3. Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Center for Healthcare Informatics and Policy, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies of the effects of electronic health records (EHRs) have had mixed findings, which may be attributable to unmeasured confounders such as individual variability in use of EHR features. OBJECTIVE: To capture physician-level variations in use of EHR features, associations with other predictors, and usage intensity over time. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of primary care providers eligible for meaningful use at a network of federally qualified health centers, using commercial EHR data from January 2010 through June 2013, a period during which the organization was preparing for and in the early stages of meaningful use. RESULTS: Data were analyzed for 112 physicians and nurse practitioners, consisting of 430,803 encounters with 99,649 patients. EHR usage metrics were developed to capture how providers accessed and added to patient data (eg, problem list updates), used clinical decision support (eg, responses to alerts), communicated (eg, printing after-visit summaries), and used panel management options (eg, viewed panel reports). Provider-level variability was high: for example, the annual average proportion of encounters with problem lists updated ranged from 5% to 60% per provider. Some metrics were associated with provider, patient, or encounter characteristics. For example, problem list updates were more likely for new patients than established ones, and alert acceptance was negatively correlated with alert frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Providers using the same EHR developed personalized patterns of use of EHR features. We conclude that physician-level usage of EHR features may be a valuable additional predictor in research on the effects of EHRs on healthcare quality and costs. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
BACKGROUND: Studies of the effects of electronic health records (EHRs) have had mixed findings, which may be attributable to unmeasured confounders such as individual variability in use of EHR features. OBJECTIVE: To capture physician-level variations in use of EHR features, associations with other predictors, and usage intensity over time. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of primary care providers eligible for meaningful use at a network of federally qualified health centers, using commercial EHR data from January 2010 through June 2013, a period during which the organization was preparing for and in the early stages of meaningful use. RESULTS: Data were analyzed for 112 physicians and nurse practitioners, consisting of 430,803 encounters with 99,649 patients. EHR usage metrics were developed to capture how providers accessed and added to patient data (eg, problem list updates), used clinical decision support (eg, responses to alerts), communicated (eg, printing after-visit summaries), and used panel management options (eg, viewed panel reports). Provider-level variability was high: for example, the annual average proportion of encounters with problem lists updated ranged from 5% to 60% per provider. Some metrics were associated with provider, patient, or encounter characteristics. For example, problem list updates were more likely for new patients than established ones, and alert acceptance was negatively correlated with alert frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Providers using the same EHR developed personalized patterns of use of EHR features. We conclude that physician-level usage of EHR features may be a valuable additional predictor in research on the effects of EHRs on healthcare quality and costs. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Nidhi R Shah; Andrew C Seger; Diane L Seger; Julie M Fiskio; Gilad J Kuperman; Barry Blumenfeld; Elaine G Recklet; David W Bates; Tejal K Gandhi Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2005-10-12 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Ruben Amarasingham; Marie Diener-West; Michael Weiner; Harold Lehmann; Jerome E Herbers; Neil R Powe Journal: Med Care Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: G J Kuperman; J M Teich; M J Tanasijevic; N Ma'Luf; E Rittenberg; A Jha; J Fiskio; J Winkelman; D W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 1999 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Daniel M Hartung; Jacquelyn Hunt; Joseph Siemienczuk; Heather Miller; Daniel R Touchette Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 5.128
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: Holly Jordan Lanham; Dean F Sittig; Luci K Leykum; Michael L Parchman; Jacqueline A Pugh; Reuben R McDaniel Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-05-22 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: P M Neri; L Redden; S Poole; C N Pozner; J Horsky; A S Raja; E Poon; G Schiff; A Landman Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Genna R Cohen; Charles P Friedman; Andrew M Ryan; Caroline R Richardson; Julia Adler-Milstein Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-06-10 Impact factor: 5.128