Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31233144›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2019

Electronic health records systems and hospital clinical performance: a study of nationwide hospital data.

Neal Yuan, R Adams Dudley, W John Boscardin, Grace A Lin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Inferring EHR Utilization Workflows through Audit Logs.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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.

Neal YuanCedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles, California, USA.
R Adams DudleyCenter for Healthcare Value, Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
W John BoscardinDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Division of Geriatrics, University of California at San Francisco and San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, California, USA.
Grace A LinCenter for Healthcare Value, Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveElectronic health records (EHRs) were expected to yield numerous benefits. However, early studies found mixed evidence of this. We sought to determine whether widespread adoption of modern EHRs in the US has improved clinical care.

methodsWe studied hospitals reporting performance measures from 2008-2015 in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital Compare database that also reported having an EHR in the American Hospital Association 2015 IT supplement. Using interrupted time-series analysis, we examined the association of EHR implementation, EHR vendor, and Meaningful Use status with 11 process measures and 30-day hospital readmission and mortality rates for heart failure, pneumonia, and acute myocardial infarction.

resultsA total of 1246 hospitals contributed 8222 hospital-years. Compared to hospitals without EHRs, hospitals with EHRs had significant improvements over time on 5 of 11 process measures. There were no substantial differences in readmission or mortality rates. Hospitals with CPSI EHR systems performed worse on several process and outcome measures. Otherwise, we found no substantial improvements in process measures or condition-specific outcomes by duration of EHR use, EHR vendor, or a hospital's Meaningful Use Stage 1 or Stage 2 status.

conclusionIn this national study of hospitals with modern EHRs, EHR use was associated with better process of care measure performance but did not improve condition-specific readmission or mortality rates regardless of duration of EHR use, vendor choice, or Meaningful Use status. Further research is required to understand why EHRs have yet to improve standard outcome measures and how to better realize the potential benefits of EHR systems.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsHospital AdministrationOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareQuality of Health CareCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S.CommerceDiffusion of InnovationHospital MortalityHospitalsHumansInterrupted Time Series AnalysisMeaningful UsePatient ReadmissionQuality Indicators, Health CareUnited Stateselectronic health recordhospital mortalityhospital readmissionmeaningful useprocess measures

Identifiers

PMID31233144
PMCPMC7647234

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.