Electronic medical record systems at academic health centers: Advantages and implementation issues

Academic Medicine

Volumn 74, Issue 5, 1999, Pages 493-498

  Retchin, Sheldon M ^a,b   Wenzel, Richard P ^a  

^a VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER PROGRAM; HEALTH CENTER; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MANAGED CARE; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL RECORD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL;

EID: 0032969267     PISSN: 10402446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00001888-199905000-00013     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Romm FJ, Putnam SM. The validity of the medical record. Med Care. 1981;19:310-5.
2. Tufo HM, Speidel JJ. Problems with medical records. Med Care. 1971;9:509-17.
3. McDonald CJ. The barriers to electronic medical record systems and how to overcome them. J Am Med Informat Assoc. 1997;4:213-21.
4. Dick RS, Steen EB, Detmer DE (eds). The Computer-Based Patient Record: an Essential Technology for Health Care. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997.
5. Johnston ME, Langton KB, Haynes RB, Mathieu A. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on clinician performance and patient outcome: a critical appraisal of research. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120:135-42.
6. Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and Quality in the Health Care Industry. Consumer Bill of Rights and Responsibilities: Preliminary Report to the President of the United States, November 1997. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1997.
7. Medical ADP Systems: Automated Medical Records Hold Promise to Improve Patient Care. Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office. GAO/IMTEC-91-54, January 22, 1991.
8. Iglehart JK. Rapid changes for academic medical centers. 2. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:407-11.
9. Automated Medical Records: Leadership Needed to Expedite Standards Development. Report to the Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate. GAO/IMTEC-93-17. Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office. April 1993.
10. National Research Council. For the Record: Protecting Electronic Health Information, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997.
11. Woodward B. The computer-based patient record and confidentiality. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:1419-22.
12. Moy E, Mazzaschi AJ, Levin RJ, Blake DA, Griner PF. Relationship between National Institutes of Health research awards to U.S. medical schools and managed care market penetration. JAMA. 1997;278:217-21.
13. Culbertson RA. How successfully can academic faculty practices compete in developing managed care markets? Acad Med. 1996;71:858-70.
14. Council on Competitiveness. Highway to Health: Transforming U.S. Health Care in the Information Age. Washington, DC: Council on Competitiveness, 1996.
15. Mamlin JJ, Baker DH. Combined time-motion and work sampling study in a general medicine clinic. Med Care. 1973;11:449-56.
16. Culbertson RA, Goode LD, Dickler RM. Organizational models of medical school relationships to the clinical enterprise. Acad Med. 1996;71: 1258-74.
17. Hoffstein PA. The organization of medical schools. In: Nicholas WR, et al. Managing the Academic Medical Practice: The Two-Headed Eagle. Englewood, CO: Medical Group Management Association, 1992:11-27.
18. Bentley JD, Chusid J, D'Antuono GR, Kelly JV, Tower DB. Faculty practice plans: the organization and characteristics of academic medical practice. Acad Med. 1991;66:433-9.
19. Retchin SM. Marketplace challenges and opportunities for faculty practice plans. Clin Perf Qual Health Care. 1997;5:45-52.
20. Cohen JJ, Dickler RM. Auditing the Medicare-billing practices of teaching physicians-welcome accountability, unfair approach. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:1317-20.
21. Whitcomb ME, Cleverly WO. Financial performance of academic medical center hospitals. Acad Med. 1993;68:729-31.
22. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Federal Register. January 9, 1998, pp 1659-1728.