Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27175631›Full record

Observational studyMedicine2016

Electronic Health Records and Quality of Care: An Observational Study Modeling Impact on Mortality, Readmissions, and Complications.

Swati Yanamadala, Doug Morrison, Catherine Curtin, Kathryn McDonald, Tina Hernandez-Boussard

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Incidence of opioid use disorder in the year after discharge from an emergency department encounter.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2021
    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

5 authors.

Swati YanamadalaFrom the Stanford University School of Medicine (SY); Stanford University School of Medicine (DM, CC, TH-B), Department of Surgery; Stanford University School of Medicine (KM), Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research; and Stanford University School of Medicine (TH-B), Biomedical Informatics, Stanford, CA.
Doug Morrison
Catherine Curtin
Kathryn McDonald
Tina Hernandez-Boussard

Funding

Utilizing Electronic Health Records to Measure and Improve Prostate Cancer CareR01CA183962 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI HERNANDEZ-BOUSSARD, TINA · 2015 to 2019
$3.1M
Improving Quality of postoperative pain care through innovative use of electronic health recordsR01HS024096 · AHRQ · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI HERNANDEZ-BOUSSARD, TINA · 2015 to 2019
$1.1M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS024096NCI NIH HHS R01 CA183962
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electronic health records (EHRs) were implemented to improve quality of care and patient outcomes. This study assessed the relationship between EHR-adoption and patient outcomes.We performed an observational study using State Inpatient Databases linked to American Hospital Association survey, 2011. Surgical and medical patients from 6 large, diverse states were included. We performed univariate analyses and developed hierarchical regression models relating level of EHR utilization and mortality, readmission rates, and complications. We evaluated the effect of EHR adoption on outcomes in a difference-in-differences analysis, 2008 to 2011.Medical and surgical patients sought care at hospitals reporting no EHR (3.5%), partial EHR (55.2%), and full EHR systems (41.3%). In univariate analyses, patients at hospitals with full EHR had the lowest rates of inpatient mortality, readmissions, and Patient Safety Indicators followed by patients at hospitals with partial EHR and then patients at hospitals with no EHR (P < 0.05). However, these associations were not robust when accounting for other patient and hospital factors, and adoption of an EHR system was not associated with improved patient outcomes (P > 0.05).These results indicate that patients receiving medical and surgical care at hospitals with no EHR system have similar outcomes compared to patients seeking care at hospitals with a full EHR system, after controlling for important confounders.To date, we have not yet seen the promised benefits of EHR systems on patient outcomes in the inpatient setting. EHRs may play a smaller role than expected in patient outcomes and overall quality of care.

Indexed as

Hospital MortalityPatient Outcome AssessmentAdolescentAdultAgedAnalysis of VarianceElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient ReadmissionQuality of Health CareRegression AnalysisUnited StatesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID27175631
PMCPMC4902473

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.