Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20503611›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical systems2010

Benchmarking electronic medical records initiatives in the US: a conceptual model.

Carlos Palacio, Jeffrey P Harrison, David Garets

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical systems, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Carlos PalacioDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine-Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL 32209, USA. carlos.palacio@jax.ufl.edu
Jeffrey P Harrison
David Garets

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article provides a conceptual model for benchmarking the use of clinical information systems within healthcare organizations. Additionally, it addresses the benefits of clinical information systems which include the reduction of errors, improvement in clinical decision-making and real time access to patient information. The literature suggests that clinical information systems provide financial benefits due to cost-savings from improved efficiency and reduction of errors. As a result, healthcare organizations should adopt such clinical information systems to improve quality of care and stay competitive in the marketplace. Our research clearly documents the increased adoption of electronic medical records in U.S. hospitals from 2005 to 2007. This is important because the electronic medical record provides an opportunity for integration of patient information and improvements in efficiency and quality of care across a wide range of patient populations. This was supported by recent federal initiatives such as the establishment of the Office of the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology (ONCHIT) to create an interoperable health information infrastructure. Potential barriers to the implementation of health information technology include cost, a lack of financial incentives for providers, and a need for interoperable systems. As a result, future government involvement and leadership may serve to accelerate widespread adoption of interoperable clinical information systems.

Indexed as

Systems IntegrationBenchmarkingElectronic Health RecordsHumansQuality Indicators, Health CareUnited States

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.