Correlates of Electronic Health Record Adoption in Office Practices: A Statewide Survey

Objective

Despite emerging evidence that electronic health records (EHRs) can improve the efficiency and quality of medical care, most physicians in office practice in the United States do not currently use an EHR. We sought to measure the correlates of EHR adoption.

Design

Mailed survey to a stratified random sample of all medical practices in Massachusetts in 2005, with one physician per practice randomly selected for survey.

Measurements

EHR adoption rates.

Results

The response rate was 71% (1345/1884). Overall, while 45% of physicians were using an EHR, EHRs were present in only 23% of practices. In multivariate analysis, practice size was strongly correlated with EHR adoption; 52% of practices with 7 or more physicians had an EHR, as compared with 14% of solo practices (adjusted odds ratio, 3.66; 95% confidence interval, 2.28–5.87). Hospital-based practices (adjusted odds ratio, 2.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.53–3.91) and practices that teach medical students or residents (adjusted odds ratio, 2.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.60–3.31) were more likely to have an EHR. The most frequently cited barriers to adoption were start-up financial costs (84%), ongoing financial costs (82%), and loss of productivity (81%).

Conclusions

While almost half of physicians in Massachusetts are using an EHR, fewer than one in four practices in Massachusetts have adopted EHRs. Adoption rates are lower in smaller practices, those not affiliated with hospitals, and those that do not teach medical students or residents. Interventions to expand EHR use must address both financial and non-financial barriers, especially among smaller practices.     

Are physicians' perceptions of healthcare quality and practice satisfaction affected by errors associated with electronic health record use?

Background

Electronic health record (EHR) adoption is a national priority in the USA, and well-designed EHRs have the potential to improve quality and safety. However, physicians are reluctant to implement EHRs due to financial constraints, usability concerns, and apprehension about unintended consequences, including the introduction of medical errors related to EHR use. The goal of this study was to characterize and describe physicians'' attitudes towards three consequences of EHR implementation: (1) the potential for EHRs to introduce new errors; (2) improvements in healthcare quality; and (3) changes in overall physician satisfaction.

Methods

Using data from a 2007 statewide survey of Massachusetts physicians, we conducted multivariate regression analysis to examine relationships between practice characteristics, perceptions of EHR-related errors, perceptions of healthcare quality, and overall physician satisfaction.

Results

30% of physicians agreed that EHRs create new opportunities for error, but only 2% believed their EHR has created more errors than it prevented. With respect to perceptions of quality, there was no significant association between perceptions of EHR-associated errors and perceptions of EHR-associated changes in healthcare quality. Finally, physicians who believed that EHRs created new opportunities for error were less likely be satisfied with their practice situation (adjusted OR 0.49, p=0.001).

Conclusions

Almost one third of physicians perceived that EHRs create new opportunities for error. This perception was associated with lower levels of physician satisfaction.     

Can health care teams improve primary care practice?

In health care settings, individuals from different disciplines come together to care for patients. Although these groups of health care personnel are generally called teams, they need to earn true team status by demonstrating teamwork. Developing health care teams requires attention to 2 central questions: who is on the team and how do team members work together? This article chiefly focuses on the second question. Cohesive health care teams have 5 key characteristics: clear goals with measurable outcomes, clinical and administrative systems, division of labor, training of all team members, and effective communication. Two organizations are described that demonstrate these components: a private primary care practice in Bangor, Me, and Kaiser Permanente's Georgia region primary care sites. Research on patient care teams suggests that teams with greater cohesiveness are associated with better clinical outcome measures and higher patient satisfaction. In addition, medical settings in which physicians and nonphysician professionals work together as teams can demonstrate improved patient outcomes. A number of barriers to team formation exist, chiefly related to the challenges of human relationships and personalities. Taking small steps toward team development may improve the work environment in primary care practices.     

Electronic health records and clinician burnout: A story of three eras

ObjectiveThe study sought to provide physicians, informaticians, and institutional policymakers with an introductory tutorial about the history of medical documentation, sources of clinician burnout, and opportunities to improve electronic health records (EHRs). We now have unprecedented opportunities in health care, with the promise of new cures, improved equity, greater sensitivity to social and behavioral determinants of health, and data-driven precision medicine all on the horizon. EHRs have succeeded in making many aspects of care safer and more reliable. Unfortunately, current limitations in EHR usability and problems with clinician burnout distract from these successes. A complex interplay of technology, policy, and healthcare delivery has contributed to our current frustrations with EHRs. Fortunately, there are opportunities to improve the EHR and health system. A stronger emphasis on improving the clinician’s experience through close collaboration by informaticians, clinicians, and vendors can combine with specific policy changes to address the causes of burnout.Target audienceThis tutorial is intended for clinicians, informaticians, policymakers, and regulators, who are essential participants in discussions focused on improving clinician burnout. Learners in biomedicine, regardless of clinical discipline, also may benefit from this primer and review.ScopeWe include (1) an overview of medical documentation from a historical perspective; (2) a summary of the forces converging over the past 20 years to develop and disseminate the modern EHR; and (3) future opportunities to improve EHR structure, function, user base, and time required to collect and extract information.     

EHR Safety: The Way Forward to Safe and Effective Systems

Diverse stakeholders—clinicians, researchers, business leaders, policy makers, and the public—have good reason to believe that the effective use of electronic health care records (EHRs) is essential to meaningful advances in health care quality and patient safety. However, several reports have documented the potential of EHRs to contribute to health care system flaws and patient harm. As organizations (including small hospitals and physician practices) with limited resources for care-process transformation, human-factors engineering, software safety, and project management begin to use EHRs, the chance of EHR-associated harm may increase. The authors propose a coordinated set of steps to advance the practice and theory of safe EHR design, implementation, and continuous improvement. These include setting EHR implementation in the context of health care process improvement, building safety into the specification and design of EHRs, safety testing and reporting, and rapid communication of EHR-related safety flaws and incidents.     

The Relationship between Electronic Health Record Use and Quality of Care over Time

Objective

Electronic health records (EHRs) have the potential to advance the quality of care, but studies have shown mixed results. The authors sought to examine the extent of EHR usage and how the quality of care delivered in ambulatory care practices varied according to duration of EHR availability.

Methods

The study linked two data sources: a statewide survey of physicians' adoption and use of EHR and claims data reflecting quality of care as indicated by physicians' performance on widely used quality measures. Using four years of measurement, we combined 18 quality measures into 6 clinical condition categories. While the survey of physicians was cross-sectional, respondents indicated the year in which they adopted EHR. In an analysis accounting for duration of EHR use, we examined the relationship between EHR adoption and quality of care.

Results

The percent of physicians reporting adoption of EHR and availability of EHR core functions more than doubled between 2000 and 2005. Among EHR users in 2005, the average duration of EHR use was 4.8 years. For all 6 clinical conditions, there was no difference in performance between EHR users and non-users. In addition, for these 6 clinical conditions, there was no consistent pattern between length of time using an EHR and physicians performance on quality measures in both bivariate and multivariate analyses.

Conclusions

In this cross-sectional study, we found no association between duration of using an EHR and performance with respect to quality of care, although power was limited. Intensifying the use of key EHR features, such as clinical decision support, may be needed to realize quality improvement from EHRs. Future studies should examine the relationship between the extent to which physicians use key EHR functions and their performance on quality measures over time.     

Electronic Health Records in Four Community Physician Practices: Impact on Quality and Cost of Care

Objective

To assess the impact of the electronic health record (EHR) on cost (i.e., payments to providers) and process measures of quality of care.

Study Design

Retrospective before-after-study-control. From the database of a large managed care organization (MCO), we obtained the claims of patients from four community physician practices that implemented the EHR and from about 50 comparison practices without the EHR in the same counties. The diverse patient and practice populations were chosen to be a sample more representative of typical private practices than has previously been studied.

Measurements

For four chronic conditions, we used commercially-available software to analyze cost per episode over a year and the rate of adherence to clinical guidelines as a measure of quality.

Results

The implementation of the EHR had a modest positive impact on the quality measure of guideline adherence for hypertension and hyperlipidemia, but no significant impact for diabetes and coronary artery disease. No measurable impact on the short-term cost per episode was found. Discussions with the study practices revealed that the timing and comprehensiveness of EHR implementation varied across practices, creating an intervention variable that was heterogeneous.

Conclusions

Guideline adherence increased across practices without EHRs and slightly faster in practices with EHRs. Measuring the impact of EHRs on cost per episode was challenging, because of the difficulty of completely capturing the long-term episodic costs of a chronic condition. Few practices associated with the study MCO had implemented EHRs in any form, much less utilizing standardized protocols.     

Enhancing the use of EHR systems for pragmatic embedded research: lessons from the NIH Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory

ObjectiveWe identified challenges and solutions to using electronic health record (EHR) systems for the design and conduct of pragmatic research.Materials and MethodsSince 2012, the Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory has served as the resource coordinating center for 21 pragmatic clinical trial demonstration projects. The EHR Core working group invited these demonstration projects to complete a written semistructured survey and used an inductive approach to review responses and identify EHR-related challenges and suggested EHR enhancements.ResultsWe received survey responses from 20 projects and identified 21 challenges that fell into 6 broad themes: (1) inadequate collection of patient-reported outcome data, (2) lack of structured data collection, (3) data standardization, (4) resources to support customization of EHRs, (5) difficulties aggregating data across sites, and (6) accessing EHR data.DiscussionBased on these findings, we formulated 6 prerequisites for PCTs that would enable the conduct of pragmatic research: (1) integrate the collection of patient-centered data into EHR systems, (2) facilitate structured research data collection by leveraging standard EHR functions, usable interfaces, and standard workflows, (3) support the creation of high-quality research data by using standards, (4) ensure adequate IT staff to support embedded research, (5) create aggregate, multidata type resources for multisite trials, and (6) create re-usable and automated queries.ConclusionWe are hopeful our collection of specific EHR challenges and research needs will drive health system leaders, policymakers, and EHR designers to support these suggestions to improve our national capacity for generating real-world evidence.     

Organizational complements to electronic health records in ambulatory physician performance: the role of support staff

In industries outside healthcare, highly skilled employees enable substantial gains in productivity after adoption of information technologies. The authors explore whether the presence of highly skilled, autonomous clinical support staff is associated with higher performance among physicians with electronic health records (EHRs). Using data from a survey of general internists, the authors assessed whether physicians with EHRs were more likely to be top performers on cost and quality if they worked with nurse practitioners or physician assistants. It was found that, among physicians with EHRs, those with highly skilled, autonomous staff were far more likely to be top performing than those without such staff (OR 7.0, 95% CI 1.7 to 34.8, p=0.02). This relationship did not hold among physicians without EHRs (OR 1.0). As we begin a national push towards greater EHR adoption, it is critical to understand why some physicians gain from EHR use and others do not.     

Brief communication: Facility characteristics associated with the use of electronic health records in residential care facilities

The integration of electronic health records (EHRs) across care settings including residential care facilities (RCFs) promises to reduce medical errors and improve coordination of services. Using data from the 2010 National Survey of Residential Care Facilities (n=2302), this study examines the association between facility structural characteristics and the use of EHRs in RCFs. Findings indicate that in 2010, only 3% of RCFs nationwide were using an EHR. However, 55% of RCFs reported using a computerized system for one or more (but not all) of the functionalities defined by a basic EHR. Ownership, chain membership, staffing levels, and facility size were significantly associated with the use of one or more core EHR functionalities. These findings suggest that facility characteristics may play an important role in the adoption of EHRs in RCFs.     

Extracting Insights from Electronic Health Records: Case Studies,a Visual Analytics Process Model,and Design Recommendations

Current electronic health record (EHR) systems facilitate the storage, retrieval, persistence, and sharing of patient data. However, the way physicians interact with EHRs has not changed much. More specifically, support for temporal analysis of a large number of EHRs has been lacking. A number of information visualization techniques have been proposed to alleviate this problem. Unfortunately, due to their limited application to a single case study, the results are often difficult to generalize across medical scenarios. We present the usage data of Lifelines2 (Wang et al. 2008), our information visualization system, and user comments, both collected over eight different medical case studies. We generalize our experience into a visual analytics process model for multiple EHRs. Based on our analysis, we make seven design recommendations to information visualization tools to explore EHR systems.     

Electronic health records improve clinical note quality

Background and objective The clinical note documents the clinician''s information collection, problem assessment, clinical management, and its used for administrative purposes. Electronic health records (EHRs) are being implemented in clinical practices throughout the USA yet it is not known whether they improve the quality of clinical notes. The goal in this study was to determine if EHRs improve the quality of outpatient clinical notes.Materials and methods A five and a half year longitudinal retrospective multicenter quantitative study comparing the quality of handwritten and electronic outpatient clinical visit notes for 100 patients with type 2 diabetes at three time points: 6 months prior to the introduction of the EHR (before-EHR), 6 months after the introduction of the EHR (after-EHR), and 5 years after the introduction of the EHR (5-year-EHR). QNOTE, a validated quantitative instrument, was used to assess the quality of outpatient clinical notes. Its scores can range from a low of 0 to a high of 100. Sixteen primary care physicians with active practices used QNOTE to determine the quality of the 300 patient notes.Results The before-EHR, after-EHR, and 5-year-EHR grand mean scores (SD) were 52.0 (18.4), 61.2 (16.3), and 80.4 (8.9), respectively, and the change in scores for before-EHR to after-EHR and before-EHR to 5-year-EHR were 18% (p<0.0001) and 55% (p<0.0001), respectively. All the element and grand mean quality scores significantly improved over the 5-year time interval.Conclusions The EHR significantly improved the overall quality of the outpatient clinical note and the quality of all its elements, including the core and non-core elements. To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate that the EHR significantly improves the quality of clinical notes.     

Research and applications: Primary care practitioners’ views on test result management in EHR-enabled health systems: a national survey

Context

Failure to notify patients of test results is common even when electronic health records (EHRs) are used to report results to practitioners. We sought to understand the broad range of social and technical factors that affect test result management in an integrated EHR-based health system.

Methods

Between June and November 2010, we conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey of all primary care practitioners (PCPs) within the Department of Veterans Affairs nationwide. Survey development was guided by a socio-technical model describing multiple inter-related dimensions of EHR use.

Findings

Of 5001 PCPs invited, 2590 (51.8%) responded. 55.5% believed that the EHRs did not have convenient features for notifying patients of test results. Over a third (37.9%) reported having staff support needed for notifying patients of test results. Many relied on the patient''s next visit to notify them for normal (46.1%) and abnormal results (20.1%). Only 45.7% reported receiving adequate training on using the EHR notification system and 35.1% reported having an assigned contact for technical assistance with the EHR; most received help from colleagues (60.4%). A majority (85.6%) stayed after hours or came in on weekends to address notifications; less than a third reported receiving protected time (30.1%). PCPs strongly endorsed several new features to improve test result management, including better tracking and visualization of result notifications.

Conclusions

Despite an advanced EHR, both social and technical challenges exist in ensuring notification of test results to practitioners and patients. Current EHR technology requires significant improvement in order to avoid similar challenges elsewhere.     

Factors associated with difficult electronic health record implementation in office practice

Little is known about physicians' perception of the ease or difficulty of implementing electronic health records (EHR). This study identified factors related to the perceived difficulty of implementing EHR. 163 physicians completed surveys before and after the implementation of EHR in an externally funded pilot program in three Massachusetts communities. Ordinal hierarchical logistic regression was used to identify baseline factors that correlated with physicians' report of difficulty with EHR implementation. Compared with physicians with ownership stake in their practices, physician employees were less likely to describe EHR implementation as difficult (adjusted OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 1.0). Physicians who perceived their staff to be innovative were also less likely to view EHR implementation as difficult (adjusted OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.8). Physicians who own their practice may need more external support for EHR implementation than those who do not. Innovative clinical support staff may ease the EHR implementation process and contribute to its success.     

Electronic health record functionality needed to better support primary care

Electronic health records (EHRs) must support primary care clinicians and patients, yet many clinicians remain dissatisfied with their system. This article presents a consensus statement about gaps in current EHR functionality and needed enhancements to support primary care. The Institute of Medicine primary care attributes were used to define needs and meaningful use (MU) objectives to define EHR functionality. Current objectives remain focused on disease rather than the whole person, ignoring factors such as personal risks, behaviors, family structure, and occupational and environmental influences. Primary care needs EHRs to move beyond documentation to interpreting and tracking information over time, as well as patient-partnering activities, support for team-based care, population-management tools that deliver care, and reduced documentation burden. While stage 3 MU''s focus on outcomes is laudable, enhanced functionality is still needed, including EHR modifications, expanded use of patient portals, seamless integration with external applications, and advancement of national infrastructure and policies.     

Physicians' Use of Key Functions in Electronic Health Records from 2005 to 2007: A Statewide Survey

Objective

Electronic health records (EHRs) have potential to improve quality and safety, but many physicians do not use these systems to full capacity. The objective of this study was to determine whether this usage gap is narrowing over time.

Design

Follow-up mail survey of 1,144 physicians in Massachusetts who completed a 2005 survey.

Measurements

Adoption of EHRs and availability and use of 10 EHR functions.

Results

The response rate was 79.4%. In 2007, 35% of practices had EHRs, up from 23% in 2005. Among practices with EHRs, there was little change between 2005 and 2007 in the availability of nine of ten EHR features; the notable exception was electronic prescribing, reported as available in 44.7% of practices with EHRs in 2005 and 70.8% in 2007. Use of EHR functions changed inconsequentially, with more than one out of five physicians not using each available function regularly in both 2005 and 2007. Only electronic prescribing increased substantially: in 2005, 19.9% of physicians with this function available used it most or all the time, compared with 42.6% in 2007 (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

By 2007, more than one third of practices in Massachusetts reported having EHRs; the availability and use of electronic prescribing within these systems has increased. In contrast, physicians reported little change in the availability and use of other EHR functions. System refinements, certification efforts, and health policies, including standards development, should address the gaps in both EHR adoption and the use of key functions.     

Measures of electronic health record use in outpatient settings across vendors

Electronic health record (EHR) log data capture clinical workflows and are a rich source of information to understand variation in practice patterns. Variation in how EHRs are used to document and support care delivery is associated with clinical and operational outcomes, including measures of provider well-being and burnout. Standardized measures that describe EHR use would facilitate generalizability and cross-institution, cross-vendor research. Here, we describe the current state of outpatient EHR use measures offered by various EHR vendors, guided by our prior conceptual work that proposed seven core measures to describe EHR use. We evaluate these measures and other reporting options provided by vendors for maturity and similarity to previously proposed standardized measures. Working toward improved standardization of EHR use measures can enable and accelerate high-impact research on physician burnout and job satisfaction as well as organizational efficiency and patient health.     

CSER and eMERGE: current and potential state of the display of genetic information in the electronic health record

Objective Clinicians’ ability to use and interpret genetic information depends upon how those data are displayed in electronic health records (EHRs). There is a critical need to develop systems to effectively display genetic information in EHRs and augment clinical decision support (CDS).Materials and Methods The National Institutes of Health (NIH)-sponsored Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research and Electronic Medical Records & Genomics EHR Working Groups conducted a multiphase, iterative process involving working group discussions and 2 surveys in order to determine how genetic and genomic information are currently displayed in EHRs, envision optimal uses for different types of genetic or genomic information, and prioritize areas for EHR improvement.Results There is substantial heterogeneity in how genetic information enters and is documented in EHR systems. Most institutions indicated that genetic information was displayed in multiple locations in their EHRs. Among surveyed institutions, genetic information enters the EHR through multiple laboratory sources and through clinician notes. For laboratory-based data, the source laboratory was the main determinant of the location of genetic information in the EHR. The highest priority recommendation was to address the need to implement CDS mechanisms and content for decision support for medically actionable genetic information.Conclusion Heterogeneity of genetic information flow and importance of source laboratory, rather than clinical content, as a determinant of information representation are major barriers to using genetic information optimally in patient care. Greater effort to develop interoperable systems to receive and consistently display genetic and/or genomic information and alert clinicians to genomic-dependent improvements to clinical care is recommended.     

Community-wide Implementation of Health Information Technology: The Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative Experience

The Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative (MAeHC) was formed to improve patient safety and quality of care by promoting the use of health information technology through community-based implementation of electronic health records (EHRs) and health information exchange. The Collaborative has recently implemented EHRs in a diverse set of competitively selected communities, encompassing nearly 500 physicians serving over 500,000 patients. Targeting both EHR implementation and health information exchange at the community level has identified numerous challenges and strategies for overcoming them. This article describes the formation and implementation phases of the Collaborative, focusing on barriers identified, lessons learned, and policy issues.