Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22585886›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of family medicine

Typical electronic health record use in primary care practices and the quality of diabetes care.

Jesse C Crosson, Pamela A Ohman-Strickland, Deborah J Cohen, Elizabeth C Clark, Benjamin F Crabtree

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Basic electronic health record (EHR) adoption inBMC health services research · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors.

Jesse C CrossonResearch Division, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, 1 World’s Fair Dr., Somerset, NJ 08873, USA. jesse.crosson@umdnj.edu
Pamela A Ohman-Strickland
Deborah J Cohen
Elizabeth C Clark
Benjamin F Crabtree

Funding

Trial to Enhance Adherence to Multiple GuidelinesR01HL070800 · NHLBI · UNIV OF MED/DENT NJ-R W JOHNSON MED SCH · PI CRABTREE, BENJAMIN F · 2002 to 2006
$3.9M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL070800NHLBI NIH HHS R01-HL 70800-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRecent efforts to encourage meaningful use of electronic health records (EHRs) assume that widespread adoption will improve the quality of ambulatory care, especially for complex clinical conditions such as diabetes. Cross-sectional studies of typical uses of commercially available ambulatory EHRs provide conflicting evidence for an association between EHR use and improved care, and effects of longer-term EHR use in community-based primary care settings on the quality of care are not well understood.

methodsWe analyzed data from 16 EHR-using and 26 non-EHR-using practices in 2 northeastern states participating in a group-randomized quality improvement trial. Measures of care were assessed for 798 patients with diabetes. We used hierarchical linear models to examine the relationship between EHR use and adherence to evidence-based diabetes care guidelines, and hierarchical logistic models to compare rates of improvement over 3 years.

resultsEHR use was not associated with better adherence to care guidelines or a more rapid improvement in adherence. In fact, patients in practices that did not use an EHR were more likely than those in practices that used an EHR to meet all of 3 intermediate outcomes targets for hemoglobin A(1c), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and blood pressure at the 2-year follow-up (odds ratio = 1.67; 95% CI, 1.12-2.51). Although the quality of care improved across all practices, rates of improvement did not differ between the 2 groups.

conclusionsConsistent use of an EHR over 3 years does not ensure successful use for improving the quality of diabetes care. Ongoing efforts to encourage adoption and meaningful use of EHRs in primary care should focus on ensuring that use succeeds in improving care. These efforts will need to include provision of assistance to longer-term EHR users.

Indexed as

Quality of Health CareDiabetes MellitusDiffusion of InnovationElectronic Health RecordsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGuideline AdherenceHumansMiddle AgedPatient Care ManagementPractice Guidelines as TopicPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID22585886
PMCPMC3354971

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.