Neal Yuan1, R Adams Dudley2, W John Boscardin3, Grace A Lin2,4. 1. Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles, California, USA. 2. Center for Healthcare Value, Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Division of Geriatrics, University of California at San Francisco and San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, California, USA. 4. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Electronic health records (EHRs) were expected to yield numerous benefits. However, early studies found mixed evidence of this. We sought to determine whether widespread adoption of modern EHRs in the US has improved clinical care. METHODS: We studied hospitals reporting performance measures from 2008-2015 in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital Compare database that also reported having an EHR in the American Hospital Association 2015 IT supplement. Using interrupted time-series analysis, we examined the association of EHR implementation, EHR vendor, and Meaningful Use status with 11 process measures and 30-day hospital readmission and mortality rates for heart failure, pneumonia, and acute myocardial infarction. RESULTS: A total of 1246 hospitals contributed 8222 hospital-years. Compared to hospitals without EHRs, hospitals with EHRs had significant improvements over time on 5 of 11 process measures. There were no substantial differences in readmission or mortality rates. Hospitals with CPSI EHR systems performed worse on several process and outcome measures. Otherwise, we found no substantial improvements in process measures or condition-specific outcomes by duration of EHR use, EHR vendor, or a hospital's Meaningful Use Stage 1 or Stage 2 status. CONCLUSION: In this national study of hospitals with modern EHRs, EHR use was associated with better process of care measure performance but did not improve condition-specific readmission or mortality rates regardless of duration of EHR use, vendor choice, or Meaningful Use status. Further research is required to understand why EHRs have yet to improve standard outcome measures and how to better realize the potential benefits of EHR systems.
OBJECTIVE: Electronic health records (EHRs) were expected to yield numerous benefits. However, early studies found mixed evidence of this. We sought to determine whether widespread adoption of modern EHRs in the US has improved clinical care. METHODS: We studied hospitals reporting performance measures from 2008-2015 in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital Compare database that also reported having an EHR in the American Hospital Association 2015 IT supplement. Using interrupted time-series analysis, we examined the association of EHR implementation, EHR vendor, and Meaningful Use status with 11 process measures and 30-day hospital readmission and mortality rates for heart failure, pneumonia, and acute myocardial infarction. RESULTS: A total of 1246 hospitals contributed 8222 hospital-years. Compared to hospitals without EHRs, hospitals with EHRs had significant improvements over time on 5 of 11 process measures. There were no substantial differences in readmission or mortality rates. Hospitals with CPSI EHR systems performed worse on several process and outcome measures. Otherwise, we found no substantial improvements in process measures or condition-specific outcomes by duration of EHR use, EHR vendor, or a hospital's Meaningful Use Stage 1 or Stage 2 status. CONCLUSION: In this national study of hospitals with modern EHRs, EHR use was associated with better process of care measure performance but did not improve condition-specific readmission or mortality rates regardless of duration of EHR use, vendor choice, or Meaningful Use status. Further research is required to understand why EHRs have yet to improve standard outcome measures and how to better realize the potential benefits of EHR systems.
Authors: Basit Chaudhry; Jerome Wang; Shinyi Wu; Margaret Maglione; Walter Mojica; Elizabeth Roth; Sally C Morton; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-04-11 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Joan S Ash; Dean F Sittig; Eric G Poon; Kenneth Guappone; Emily Campbell; Richard H Dykstra Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2007-04-25 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Gregory L Alexander; Chelsea Deroche; Kimberly Powell; Abu Saleh Mohammad Mosa; Lori Popejoy; Richelle Koopman Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2020-02-05 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: Gregory L Alexander; Chelsea Deroche; Kimberly Powell; Abu Saleh Mohammad Mosa; Lori Popejoy; Richelle Koopman Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: Chunya Huang; Ross Koppel; John D McGreevey; Catherine K Craven; Richard Schreiber Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2020-11-11 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Ann Kutney-Lee; Margo Brooks Carthon; Douglas M Sloane; Kathryn H Bowles; Matthew D McHugh; Linda H Aiken Journal: Med Care Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 3.178
Authors: Victoria L Tiase; William Hull; Mary M McFarland; Katherine A Sward; Guilherme Del Fiol; Catherine Staes; Charlene Weir; Mollie R Cummins Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-12-17 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Rosa María Añel Rodríguez; Irene García Alfaro; Rafael Bravo Toledo; José Daniel Carballeira Rodríguez Journal: Aten Primaria Date: 2021-12 Impact factor: 1.137