Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24431335›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

Electronic health record functionality needed to better support primary care.

Alex H Krist, John W Beasley, Jesse C Crosson, David C Kibbe, Michael S Klinkman, Christoph U Lehmann, Chester H Fox, Jason M Mitchell, James W Mold, Wilson D Pace and 7 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05277116 (The Electronic Medical Records and GEnomics), which is not on this map. Cited by 52 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing 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.

NCT05277116 naactive not recruitingnot on this map

The Electronic Medical Records and GEnomics (eMERGE) Network Genomic Risk Assessment

TypeinterventionalSponsorVanderbilt University Medical CenterRan2022 to 2030Enrolled26,877ConditionsGenetic DiseaseArmsGenome Informed Risk Assessment (GIRA) report
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

17 authors.

Alex H KristDepartment of Family Medicine and Population Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
John W BeasleyDepartment of Family Medicine and College of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Jesse C CrossonMathematica Policy Research, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
David C KibbeCenter for Health IT, American Academy of Family Physicians, Kansas City, Kansas, USA.
Michael S KlinkmanDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Christoph U LehmannDepartments of Pediatrics and Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Chester H FoxDepartment of Family Medicine, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA.
Jason M MitchellCenter for Health IT, American Academy of Family Physicians, Kansas City, Kansas, USA.
James W MoldDepartment of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
Wilson D PaceDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Kevin A PetersonDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Robert L PhillipsAmerican Board of Family Medicine, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Robert PostDepartment of Family Medicine, Virtua Health, Voorhees, New Jersey, USA.
Jon PuroOCHIN, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Michael RaddockDepartment of Family Medicine, MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Ray SimkusBrookswood Family Practice, Langley, British Columbia, Canada.
Steven E WaldrenCenter for Health IT, American Academy of Family Physicians, Kansas City, Kansas, USA.

Funding

Improving Evidence-Based Primary Care for Chronic Kidney DiseaseR01DK090407 · NIDDK · STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO · PI FOX, CHESTER H · 2011 to 2015
$3.3M
NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK090407
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

ConsensusElectronic Health RecordsHumansPrimary Health CareSocieties, MedicalUnited StatesElectronic Health RecordsMeaningful UsePrimary Care

Identifiers

PMID24431335
PMCPMC4147605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.