Katherine K Kim1, Robert S Rudin, Machelle D Wilson. 1. University of California Davis, Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing, 2450 48th St, Ste 2600, Sacramento, CA 95817. E-mail: kathykim@ucdavis.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: National and state initiatives to spur adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) and health information exchange (HIE) among providers in rural and underserved communities have been in place for 15 years. Our goal was to systematically assess the impact of these initiatives by quantifying the level of adoption and key factors associated with adoption among community health centers in California. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional statewide survey. METHODS: We conducted a telephone survey of all California primary care community health centers (CHCs) from August to September 2013. Multiple logistic regressions were fit to test for associations between various practice characteristics and adoption of EHRs, meaningful use-certified EHRs, and HIE. For the multivariable model, we included those variables which were significant at the P = .10 level in the univariate tests. RESULTS: We received responses from 194 CHCs (73.5% response rate). Adoption of any EHRs (80.3%) and meaningful use-certified EHRs (94.6% of those with an EHR) was very high. Adoption of HIE is substantial (48.7%) and took place within a few years (mean = 2.61 years; SD = 2.01). More than half (54.7%) of CHCs are able to receive data into the EHR indicating some level of interoperability. Patient engagement capacity is moderate, with 21.6% offering a PHR, and 55.2% electronic visit summaries. Rural location and belonging to a multi-site clinic organization both increase the odds of adoption of EHRs, HIE, and electronic visit summary, with the odds ratio ranging from 0.63 to 3.28 (all P values < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Greater adoption of health information technology (IT) in rural areas may be the result of both federal and state investments. As CHCs lack access to capital for investments, continued support of technology infrastructure may be needed for them to further leverage health IT to improve healthcare.
OBJECTIVES: National and state initiatives to spur adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) and health information exchange (HIE) among providers in rural and underserved communities have been in place for 15 years. Our goal was to systematically assess the impact of these initiatives by quantifying the level of adoption and key factors associated with adoption among community health centers in California. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional statewide survey. METHODS: We conducted a telephone survey of all California primary care community health centers (CHCs) from August to September 2013. Multiple logistic regressions were fit to test for associations between various practice characteristics and adoption of EHRs, meaningful use-certified EHRs, and HIE. For the multivariable model, we included those variables which were significant at the P = .10 level in the univariate tests. RESULTS: We received responses from 194 CHCs (73.5% response rate). Adoption of any EHRs (80.3%) and meaningful use-certified EHRs (94.6% of those with an EHR) was very high. Adoption of HIE is substantial (48.7%) and took place within a few years (mean = 2.61 years; SD = 2.01). More than half (54.7%) of CHCs are able to receive data into the EHR indicating some level of interoperability. Patient engagement capacity is moderate, with 21.6% offering a PHR, and 55.2% electronic visit summaries. Rural location and belonging to a multi-site clinic organization both increase the odds of adoption of EHRs, HIE, and electronic visit summary, with the odds ratio ranging from 0.63 to 3.28 (all P values < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Greater adoption of health information technology (IT) in rural areas may be the result of both federal and state investments. As CHCs lack access to capital for investments, continued support of technology infrastructure may be needed for them to further leverage health IT to improve healthcare.
Authors: Cyrus K Yamin; Srinivas Emani; Deborah H Williams; Stuart R Lipsitz; Andrew S Karson; Jonathan S Wald; David W Bates Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2011-03-28
Authors: Kevin B Johnson; Kim M Unertl; Qingxia Chen; Nancy M Lorenzi; Hui Nian; James Bailey; Mark Frisse Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Joshua M Pevnick; Maria Claver; Aram Dobalian; Steven M Asch; Harris R Stutman; Alan Tomines; Paul Fu Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2010-05-22 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: Dori A Cross; Maria A Stevens; Steven B Spivack; Genevra F Murray; Hector P Rodriguez; Valerie A Lewis Journal: Med Care Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Daniel M Walker; Cynthia J Sieck; Terri Menser; Timothy R Huerta; Ann Scheck McAlearney Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Sachin K Garg; Courtney R Lyles; Sara Ackerman; Margaret A Handley; Dean Schillinger; Gato Gourley; Veenu Aulakh; Urmimala Sarkar Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2016-02-06 Impact factor: 2.796