Michele C Lim1, Michael V Boland2,3,4, Colin A McCannel5, Arvind Saini6, Michael F Chiang7, K David Epley8, Flora Lum9. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Science, University of California, Davis, Sacramento. 2. Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Division of Health Sciences Informatics, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine Baltimore, Maryland. 4. Web Editor. 5. Stein Eye Institute, University of California Los Angeles. 6. California Cornea Consultants, Escondido. 7. Departments of Ophthalmology and Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. 8. Children's Eye Care, Kirkland, Washington. 9. American Academy of Ophthalmology, San Francisco, California.
Abstract
Importance: Assessing the rate of electronic health record (EHR) adoption and ophthalmologists' perceptions on financial and clinical productivity is important in understanding how to direct future design and health care policy. Objective: To assess adoption rate and perceptions of financial and clinical outcomes of EHRs among ophthalmologists in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants: Population-based, cross-sectional study. A random sample of 2000 ophthalmologists was generated on the basis of mailing address zip codes from the 2015 American Academy of Ophthalmology US active membership database, which included more than 18 000 ophthalmologists. A survey was sent by email to assess adoption rate of EHRs, perceptions of financial and clinical productivity, and engagement with Medicare and Medicaid programs that incentivize the use of EHRs. The survey was conducted between 2015 and 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: Adoption rate of EHRs and perceptions of financial and clinical productivity. Results: The adoption rate of EHRs among surveyed ophthalmologists (348 respondents) was 72.1%. The responding ophthalmologists perceived that their net revenues and productivity have declined and that practice costs are higher with EHR use. Of those who attested for stage 1 of the EHR incentive program, 83% had already or were planning to attest to stage 2, but 9% had no plans. Conclusions and Relevance: The adoption of EHRs by ophthalmologists has more than doubled since a 2011 survey and is similar to that of primary care physicians (79%). In comparison with 2 previous surveys of ophthalmologists, respondents had more negative perceptions of EHR productivity outcomes and effect on practice costs, although financial data were not collected in this survey to support these opinions. These negative perceptions suggest that more attention should be placed on improving the efficiency and usability of EHR systems.
Importance: Assessing the rate of electronic health record (EHR) adoption and ophthalmologists' perceptions on financial and clinical productivity is important in understanding how to direct future design and health care policy. Objective: To assess adoption rate and perceptions of financial and clinical outcomes of EHRs among ophthalmologists in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants: Population-based, cross-sectional study. A random sample of 2000 ophthalmologists was generated on the basis of mailing address zip codes from the 2015 American Academy of Ophthalmology US active membership database, which included more than 18 000 ophthalmologists. A survey was sent by email to assess adoption rate of EHRs, perceptions of financial and clinical productivity, and engagement with Medicare and Medicaid programs that incentivize the use of EHRs. The survey was conducted between 2015 and 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: Adoption rate of EHRs and perceptions of financial and clinical productivity. Results: The adoption rate of EHRs among surveyed ophthalmologists (348 respondents) was 72.1%. The responding ophthalmologists perceived that their net revenues and productivity have declined and that practice costs are higher with EHR use. Of those who attested for stage 1 of the EHR incentive program, 83% had already or were planning to attest to stage 2, but 9% had no plans. Conclusions and Relevance: The adoption of EHRs by ophthalmologists has more than doubled since a 2011 survey and is similar to that of primary care physicians (79%). In comparison with 2 previous surveys of ophthalmologists, respondents had more negative perceptions of EHR productivity outcomes and effect on practice costs, although financial data were not collected in this survey to support these opinions. These negative perceptions suggest that more attention should be placed on improving the efficiency and usability of EHR systems.
Authors: Chun-Ju Hsiao; Ashish K Jha; Jennifer King; Vaishali Patel; Michael F Furukawa; Farzad Mostashari Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2013-07-09 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Rishi P Singh; Rumneek Bedi; Ang Li; Sharmila Kulkarni; Tiffany Rodstrom; Gene Altus; Daniel F Martin Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Douglas L Weeks; Benjamin J Keeney; Peggy C Evans; Quincy D Moore; Douglas A Conrad Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Michael F Chiang; Sarah Read-Brown; Daniel C Tu; Dongseok Choi; David S Sanders; Thomas S Hwang; Steven Bailey; Daniel J Karr; Elizabeth Cottle; John C Morrison; David J Wilson; Thomas R Yackel Journal: Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc Date: 2013-09
Authors: Michele C Lim; Roma P Patel; Victor S Lee; Patricia D Weeks; Martha K Barber; Mitchell R Watnik Journal: J Ophthalmol Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 1.909
Authors: Sally L Baxter; Helena E Gali; Michael F Chiang; Michelle R Hribar; Lucila Ohno-Machado; Robert El-Kareh; Abigail E Huang; Heather E Chen; Andrew S Camp; Don O Kikkawa; Bobby S Korn; Jeffrey E Lee; Christopher A Longhurst; Marlene Millen Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2020-02-19 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Bradley S Henriksen; Isaac H Goldstein; Adam Rule; Abigail E Huang; Haley Dusek; Austin Igelman; Michael F Chiang; Michelle R Hribar Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-12-05 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Sally L Baxter; Helena E Gali; Abigail E Huang; Marlene Millen; Robert El-Kareh; Eric Nudleman; Shira L Robbins; Christopher W D Heichel; Andrew S Camp; Bobby S Korn; Jeffrey E Lee; Don O Kikkawa; Christopher A Longhurst; Michael F Chiang; Michelle R Hribar; Lucila Ohno-Machado Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-03-22 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Isaac H Goldstein; Thomas Hwang; Sowjanya Gowrisankaran; Ryan Bales; Michael F Chiang; Michelle R Hribar Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2019-01-18 Impact factor: 12.079
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
Authors: Helena E Gali; Sally L Baxter; Lina Lander; Abigail E Huang; Marlene Millen; Robert El-Kareh; Eric Nudleman; Daniel L Chao; Shira L Robbins; Christopher W D Heichel; Andrew S Camp; Bobby S Korn; Jeffrey E Lee; Don O Kikkawa; Christopher A Longhurst; Michael F Chiang; Michelle R Hribar; Lucila Ohno-Machado Journal: J Acad Ophthalmol Date: 2019-07
Authors: Sally L Baxter; Helena E Gali; Mitul C Mehta; Scott E Rudkin; John Bartlett; James D Brandt; Catherine Q Sun; Marlene Millen; Christopher A Longhurst Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2020-06-07 Impact factor: 12.079