Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25848412›Full record

Trial reportApplied clinical informatics2015

Association between electronic health records and health care utilization.

R Kaushal, A Edwards, L M Kern, HITEC Investigators

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Applied clinical informatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

R KaushalDepartment of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medical College , New York, NY ; Health Information Technology Evaluation Collaborative , New York, NY ; Center for Healthcare Informatics and Policy, Weill Cornell Medical College , New York, NY ; Department of Pediatrics, Weill Cornell Medical College , New York, NY ; Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College , New York, NY ; New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY.
A EdwardsDepartment of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medical College , New York, NY ; Health Information Technology Evaluation Collaborative , New York, NY ; Center for Healthcare Informatics and Policy, Weill Cornell Medical College , New York, NY.
L M KernDepartment of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medical College , New York, NY ; Health Information Technology Evaluation Collaborative , New York, NY ; Center for Healthcare Informatics and Policy, Weill Cornell Medical College , New York, NY ; Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College , New York, NY.
HITEC Investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe federal government is investing approximately $20 billion in electronic health records (EHRs), in part to address escalating health care costs. However, empirical evidence that provider use of EHRs decreases health care costs is limited.

objectiveTo determine any association between EHRs and health care utilization.

methodsWe conducted a cohort study (2008-2009) in the Hudson Valley, a multi-payer, multiprovider community in New York State. We included 328 primary care physicians in predominantly small practices (median practice size four primary care physicians), who were caring for 223,772 patients. Data from an independent practice association was used to determine adoption of EHRs. Claims data aggregated across five commercial health plans was used to characterize seven types of health care utilization: primary care visits, specialist visits, radiology tests, laboratory tests, emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and readmissions. We used negative binomial regression to determine associations between EHR adoption and each utilization outcome, adjusting for ten physician characteristics.

resultsApproximately half (48%) of the physicians were using paper records and half (52%) were using EHRs. For every 100 patients seen by physicians using EHRs, there were 14 fewer specialist visits (adjusted p < 0.01) and 9 fewer radiology tests (adjusted p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in rates of primary care visits, laboratory tests, emergency department visits, hospitalizations or readmissions.

conclusionsPatients of primary care providers who used EHRs were less likely to have specialist visits and radiology tests than patients of primary care providers who did not use EHRs.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsHumansMedicinePatient Acceptance of Health CarePhysicians, Primary CareResidence CharacteristicsElectronic health recordshealth serviceshealth utilizationprimary health care

Identifiers

PMID25848412
PMCPMC4377559

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.