Vaishali Patel1, Lauren McNamara2, Prashila Dullabh2, Megan E Sawchuk3, Matthew Swain4. 1. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, United States. Electronic address: vaishali.patel@hhs.gov. 2. NORC at the University of Chicago, United States. 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA, United States. 4. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize nationwide variation and factors associated with clinical laboratories': (1) capabilities to send structured test results electronically to ordering practitioners' EHR systems; and (2) their levels of exchange activity, as measured by whether they sent more than three-quarters of their test results as structured data to ordering practitioners' EHR systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A national survey of all independent and hospital laboratories was conducted in 2013. Using an analytic weighted sample of 9382 clinical laboratories, a series of logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify organizational and area characteristics associated with clinical laboratories' exchange capability and activity. RESULTS: Hospital-based clinical laboratories (71%) and larger clinical laboratories (80%) had significantly higher levels of capability compared to independent (58%) and smaller laboratories (48%), respectively; though all had similar levels of exchange activity, with 30% of clinical laboratories sending 75% or more of their test results electronically. In multivariate analyses, hospital and the largest laboratories had 1.87 and 4.40 higher odds, respectively, of possessing the capability to send results electronically compared to independent laboratories (p<0.001). Laboratories located in areas with a higher share of potential exchange partners had a small but significantly greater capability to send results electronically and higher levels of exchange activity(p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Clinical laboratories' capability to exchange varied by size and type; however, all clinical laboratories had relatively low levels of exchange activity. The role of exchange partners potentially played a small but significant role in driving exchange capability and activity. Published by Elsevier B.V.
OBJECTIVE: To characterize nationwide variation and factors associated with clinical laboratories': (1) capabilities to send structured test results electronically to ordering practitioners' EHR systems; and (2) their levels of exchange activity, as measured by whether they sent more than three-quarters of their test results as structured data to ordering practitioners' EHR systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A national survey of all independent and hospital laboratories was conducted in 2013. Using an analytic weighted sample of 9382 clinical laboratories, a series of logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify organizational and area characteristics associated with clinical laboratories' exchange capability and activity. RESULTS: Hospital-based clinical laboratories (71%) and larger clinical laboratories (80%) had significantly higher levels of capability compared to independent (58%) and smaller laboratories (48%), respectively; though all had similar levels of exchange activity, with 30% of clinical laboratories sending 75% or more of their test results electronically. In multivariate analyses, hospital and the largest laboratories had 1.87 and 4.40 higher odds, respectively, of possessing the capability to send results electronically compared to independent laboratories (p<0.001). Laboratories located in areas with a higher share of potential exchange partners had a small but significantly greater capability to send results electronically and higher levels of exchange activity(p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Clinical laboratories' capability to exchange varied by size and type; however, all clinical laboratories had relatively low levels of exchange activity. The role of exchange partners potentially played a small but significant role in driving exchange capability and activity. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Entities:
Keywords:
Clinical laboratories; Electronic health records; Health information exchange; Health information technology; Interoperability; Standards
Authors: Jan Walker; Eric Pan; Douglas Johnston; Julia Adler-Milstein; David W Bates; Blackford Middleton Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2005 Jan-Jun Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Lisa M Kern; Yolanda Barrón; A John Blair; Jerry Salkowe; Deborah Chambers; Mark A Callahan; Rainu Kaushal Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Sunil Kripalani; Frank LeFevre; Christopher O Phillips; Mark V Williams; Preetha Basaviah; David W Baker Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-02-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Christopher L Roy; Eric G Poon; Andrew S Karson; Zahra Ladak-Merchant; Robin E Johnson; Saverio M Maviglia; Tejal K Gandhi Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2005-07-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Emily Gill; Patricia C Dykes; Robert S Rudin; Marianne Storm; Kelly McGrath; David W Bates Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2020-02-19 Impact factor: 4.046