ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2015
Quality measure performance in small practices before and after electronic health record adoption.
Article in EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Value of Electronic Health Records Since the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Review
- Change in Diabetes Prevalence and Control among New York City Adults: NYC Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2004-2014.Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTo date, little research has been published on the impact that the transition from paper-based record keeping to the use of electronic health records (EHR) has on performance on clinical quality measures. This study examines whether small, independent medical practices improved in their performance on nine clinical quality measures soon after adopting EHRs.
methodsData abstracted by manual review of paper and electronic charts for 6,007 patients across 35 small, primary care practices were used to calculate rates of nine clinical quality measures two years before and up to two years after EHR adoption.
resultsFor seven measures, population-level performance rates did not change before EHR adoption. Rates of antithrombotic therapy and smoking status recorded increased soon after EHR adoption; increases in blood pressure control occurred later. Rates of hemoglobin A1c testing, BMI recorded, and cholesterol testing decreased before rebounding; smoking cessation intervention, hemoglobin A1c control and cholesterol control did not significantly change. DISCUSSION: The effect of EHR adoption on performance on clinical quality measures is mixed. To improve performance, practices may need to develop new workflows and adapt to different documentation methods after EHR adoption.
conclusionsIn the short term, EHRs may facilitate documentation of information needed for improving the delivery of clinical preventive services. Policies and incentive programs intended to drive improvement should include in their timelines consideration of the complexity of clinical tasks and documentation needed to capture performance on measures when developing timelines, and should also include assistance with workflow redesign to fully integrate EHRs into medical practice.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.