ArticleCureus2022
Use of Electronic Health Records and Quality of Ambulatory Healthcare.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Using 42 CFR part 2 revisions to integrate substance use disorder treatment information into electronic health records at a safety net health system.Addiction science & clinical practice · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background This study aimed to measure the association between electronic health record (EHR) use and quality measures in ambulatory healthcare. Methodology A quantitative, retrospective, cross-sectional design was used by examining secondary data from the 2015-2016 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. The relationship between EHR use and seven quality measures was examined using the Donabedian model as a framework. Quality measures included (a) diabetes measures, (b) obesity measures, (c) blood pressure screening, (d) depression screening, and (e) breast cancer screening. A total of 37,290 office visits were included, representing 817 million national office visits. For each of the quality measures, we determined the (a) associations using unadjusted and adjusted regression models based on subsets of the sample that met the inclusion criteria for quality measures; and (b) the changes in the area under the curve (AUC). Results Approximately 75% of office visits fulfilled all EHR use. Positive associations were found between EHR use and better quality for the following three out of seven measures: higher odds of screening for obesity (odds ratio (OR) = 2.2; p = <0.0001), blood pressure (OR = 2.5; p = <0.0001), and breast cancer (OR = 1.8; p = 0.0166). Receiver operating curve results showed the highest gain in the AUC for process-grouped measures. Hence, it was considered to be a strong predictor for all quality measures. Conclusions Evidence showed improvement in some quality measures (screening for obesity, blood pressure, and breast cancer). Common and standardized health processes were more likely to be completed and recorded than others. Future policies concerning health information technology can shift the focus from improving EHR use to enhancing patient and quality outcomes. Further research is needed to identify circumstances where quality is improved.
Indexed as
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.