Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34333626›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2021

Assessing hospital electronic health record vendor performance across publicly reported quality measures.

A Jay Holmgren, Masha Kuznetsova, David Classen, David W Bates

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Are You Using the Right Electronic Health Record?Perspectives in health information managemen · 2022
    Article
  4. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

A Jay HolmgrenSchool of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Masha KuznetsovaHarvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6710-526X
David ClassenDivision of Clinical Epidemiology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
David W BatesDepartment of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

Ensuring Safe Performance of Electronic Health RecordsR01HS023696 · AHRQ · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI BATES, DAVID W., MD,MSC · 2014 to 2014
$1.2M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS023696AHRQ HHS R01HS023696
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveLittle is known regarding variation among electronic health record (EHR) vendors in quality performance. This issue is compounded by selection effects in which high-quality hospitals coalesce to a subset of market leading vendors. We measured hospital performance, stratified by EHR vendor, across 4 quality metrics. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe used data on 1272 hospitals in 2018 across 4 quality measures: Leapfrog Computerized Provider Order Entry/EHR Evaluation, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital Compare Star Ratings, Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) score, and Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) ratio. We examined score distributions and used multivariable regression to evaluate the association between vendor and score, recovering partial R2 to assess the proportion of quality variation explained by vendor.

resultsWe found significant variation across and within EHR vendors. The largest vendor, vendor A, had the highest mean score on the Leapfrog Computerized Provider Order Entry/EHR Evaluation and HRRP ratio, vendor G had the highest Hospital Compare score, and vendor F had the highest HAC score. In adjusted models, no vendor was significantly associated with higher performance on more than 2 measures. EHR vendor explained between 1.2% (HAC) and 7.6 (HRRP) of the variation in quality performance. DISCUSSION: No EHR vendor was associated with higher quality across all measures, and the 2 largest vendors were not associated with the highest scores. Only a small fraction of quality variation was explained by EHR vendor choice.

conclusionsTop performance on quality measures can be achieved with any EHR vendor; much of quality performance is driven by the hospital and how it uses the EHR.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsQuality Indicators, Health CareAgedCommerceHospitalsHumansMedicareUnited Stateselectronic health recordhospitalspatient safetyquality measurement

Identifiers

PMID34333626
PMCPMC8449606
OpenAlexW3188295982

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.