Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29903701›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2018

Impact of a Web-Based Electronic Health Record on Behavioral Health Service Delivery for Children and Adolescents: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Eric J Bruns, Alyssa N Hook, Elizabeth M Parker, Isabella Esposito, April Sather, Ryan M Parigoris, Aaron R Lyon, Kelly L Hyde

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02421874 (Development, Usability Testing, and Effectiveness Evaluation of Wraparound Team Monitoring System), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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.

NCT02421874 phase1 / phase2unknown statusnot on this map

Development, Usability Testing, and Effectiveness Evaluation of Wraparound Team Monitoring System

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of WashingtonRan2015 to 2017Enrolled160ConditionsSerious Emotional Disturbance of YouthArmsWraparound Team Monitoring System electronic health record, Education about fidelity maintenance and monitoring
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eric J BrunsDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9443-1968
Alyssa N HookDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1596-3438
Elizabeth M ParkerDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5027-6342
Isabella EspositoDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8075-0076
April SatherDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1632-278X
Ryan M ParigorisDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7456-8526
Aaron R LyonDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3657-5060
Kelly L HydeFidelityEHR, Santa Fe, NM, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4464-6463
University of Washington · USFidelity Investments (United States) · US

Funding

Development, Usability Testing, and Effectiveness Evaluation of the WraparouR42MH095516 · NIMH · ACCOUNTABILITY SOLUTIONS, LLC · PI BRUNS, ERIC J. · 2014 to 2015
$990k
NIMH NIH HHS R42 MH095516
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic health records (EHRs) have been widely proposed as a mechanism for improving health care quality. However, rigorous research on the impact of EHR systems on behavioral health service delivery is scant, especially for children and adolescents.

objectiveThe current study evaluated the usability of an EHR developed to support the implementation of the Wraparound care coordination model for children and youth with complex behavioral health needs, and impact of the EHR on service processes, fidelity, and proximal outcomes.

methodsThirty-four Wraparound facilitators working in two programs in two states were randomized to either use the new EHR (19/34, 56%) or to continue to implement Wraparound services as usual (SAU) using paper-based documentation (15/34, 44%). Key functions of the EHR included standard fields such as youth and family information, diagnoses, assessment data, and progress notes. In addition, there was the maintenance of a coordinated plan of care, progress measurement on strategies and services, communication among team members, and reporting on services, expenditures, and outcomes. All children and youth referred to services for eight months (N=211) were eligible for the study. After excluding those who were ineligible (69/211, 33%) and who declined to participate (59/211, 28%), a total of 83/211 (39%) children and youth were enrolled in the study with 49/211 (23%) in the EHR condition and 34/211 (16%) in the SAU condition. Facilitators serving these youth and families and their supervisors completed measures of EHR usability and appropriateness, supervision processes and activities, work satisfaction, and use of and attitudes toward standardized assessments. Data from facilitators were collected by web survey and, where necessary, by phone interviews. Parents and caregivers completed measures via phone interviews. Related to fidelity and quality of behavioral health care, including Wraparound team climate, working alliance with providers, fidelity to the Wraparound model, and satisfaction with services.

resultsEHR-assigned facilitators from both sites demonstrated the robust use of the system. Facilitators in the EHR group reported spending significantly more time reviewing client progress (P=.03) in supervision, and less time overall sending reminders to youth/families (P=.04). A trend toward less time on administrative tasks (P=.098) in supervision was also found. Facilitators in both groups reported significantly increased use of measurement-based care strategies overall, which may reflect cross-group contamination (given that randomization of staff to the EHR occurred within agencies and supervisors supervised both types of staff). Although not significant at P<.05, there was a trend (P=.10) toward caregivers in the EHR group reporting poorer shared agreement on tasks on the measure of working alliance with providers. No other significant between-group differences were found.

conclusionsResults support the proposal that use of EHR systems can promote the use of client progress data and promote efficiency; however, there was little evidence of any impact (positive or negative) on overall service quality, fidelity, or client satisfaction. The field of children's behavioral health services would benefit from additional research on EHR systems using designs that include larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02421874; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02421874 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6yyGPJ3NA).

Indexed as

AdolescentChildChild Health ServicesElectronic Health RecordsHumansInternetSurveys and Questionnairesadolescentcare coordinationchildelectronic health recordsintegrated caremedical informaticsmental health

Identifiers

PMID29903701
PMCPMC6024107
OpenAlexW2802304790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.