Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37798580›Full record

SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2023

Transitioning from One Electronic Health Record to Another: A Systematic Review.

Isomi M Miake-Lye, Alison M Cogan, Selene Mak, Julian Brunner, Seppo Rinne, Catherine E Brayton, Ariella Krones, Travis E Ross, Jason T Burton, Michael Weiner

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

10 authors.

Isomi M Miake-LyeCenter for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy (CSHIIP), VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA. isomi.miake-lye@va.gov.ORCID 0000-0002-8867-1022
Alison M CoganCenter for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy (CSHIIP), VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Selene MakCenter for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy (CSHIIP), VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Julian BrunnerCenter for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy (CSHIIP), VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Seppo RinneCenter for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, MA, USA.
Catherine E BraytonCenter for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy (CSHIIP), VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Ariella KronesDepartment of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Travis E RossPain Research, Informatics, Multi-Morbidities, and Education (PRIME) Center, VA West Haven Medical Center, West Haven, CT, USA.
Jason T BurtonLouise M. Darling Biomedical Library, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Michael WeinerCenter for Health Information and Communication, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Health Services Research and Development Service CIN 13-416, Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, IN, Indianapolis, USA.

Funding

HSRD VA IK2 HX002248VA SDR 20-197)VA VA HSR&D Coordinating Hub to Promote Research Optimizing Veteran-centric EHR Networks (PROVEN Hub
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTransitioning to a new electronic health record (EHR) presents different challenges than transitions from paper to electronic records. We synthesized the body of peer-reviewed literature on EHR-to-EHR transitions to evaluate the generalizability of published work and identify knowledge gaps where more evidence is needed.

methodsWe conducted a broad search in PubMed through July 2022 and collected all publications from two prior reviews. Peer-reviewed publications reporting on data from an EHR-to-EHR transition were included. We extracted data on study design, setting, sample size, EHR systems involved, dates of transition and data collection, outcomes reported, and key findings.

resultsThe 40 included publications were grouped into thematic categories for narrative synthesis: clinical care outcomes (n = 15), provider perspectives (n = 11), data migration (n = 8), patient experience (n = 4), and other topics (n = 5). Many studies described single sites that are early adopters of technology with robust research resources, switching from a homegrown system to a commercial system, and emphasized the dynamic effect of transitioning on important clinical care and other outcomes over time. DISCUSSION: The published literature represents a heterogeneous mix of study designs and outcome measures, and while some of the stronger studies in this review used longitudinal approaches to compare outcomes across more sites, the current literature is primarily descriptive and is not designed to offer recommendations that can guide future EHR transitions. Transitioning from one EHR to another constitutes a major organizational change that requires nearly every person in the organization to change how they do their work. Future research should include human factors as well as diverse methodological approaches such as mixed methods and implementation science.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsOutcome Assessment, Health CareData CollectionHumanselectronic health recordsorganizational changesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37798580
PMCPMC10593710

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.