Rethinking electronic health records to better achieve quality and safety goals

Annual Review of Medicine

Volumn 58, Issue , 2007, Pages 35-47

  Stead, William W ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Biomedical informatics; Clinical adoption; Health care information technology; Patient engagement; Unintended consequences

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER INTERFACE; E-MAIL; ECOSYSTEM; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; GOAL ATTAINMENT; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; INFORMATION SYSTEM; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; MEDICAL ERROR; MEDICAL INFORMATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SAFETY; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; MEDICAL RECORD; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATIENT RIGHT;

DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS, CLINICAL; HUMANS; MEDICAL ERRORS; MEDICAL RECORDS SYSTEMS, COMPUTERIZED; PATIENT ACCESS TO RECORDS;

EID: 34047110926     PISSN: 00664219     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.med.58.061705.144942     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Stead WW. 1989. A quarter-century of computer-based medical records. M. D. Comput. 6(2):75-81
2. Garg AX, Adhikari NKJ, McDonald H, et al. 2005. Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes. JAMA 293(10):1223
3. Dick RS, Steen EB. 1991. The computer-based patient record. Inst. Med. Rep. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
4. Gans D, Kralewski J, Hammons T, et al. 2005. Medical groups' adoption of electronic health records and information systems. Health Aff. 24(5):1323-33
5. Han YY, Cardilo JA, Venkataraman ST, et al. 2006. Unexpected increased mortality after implementation of a commercially sold computerized physician order entry system. Pediatrics 116:1506-12
6. Rosenbloom ST, Harrel FE, Lehmann CU, et al. 2006. Perceived increase in mortality after process and policy changes implemented with computerized physician order entry. Pediatrics 117:1452-55
7. McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, et al. 2003. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med. 348:2635-45
8. Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Stukel TA, et al. 2003. The implications of regional variations in medicare spending. part 1: the content, quality, and accessibility of care. Ann. Intern. Med. 138:273-87
9. Kuhn L, Corrigan J, Donaldson M. 2000. To err is human: building a safer health system. Inst. Med. Rep. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
10. Wang SJ, Middleton B, Prosses LA, et al. 2003. A cost-benefit analysis of electronic medical records in primary care. Am. J. Med. 114:397-403
11. Ash JS, Berg M, Coiera E. 2004. Some unintended consequences of information technology in health care: the nature of patient care information system-related errors. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 11:104-12
12. Miller RA, Gardner RM. 1997. Recommendations for responsible monitoring and regulation of clinical software systems. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 4:442-57
13. Walsh SH. 2004. The clinician's perspective on electronic health records and how they can affect patient care. BMJ 328:1184-87
14. Hogan WR, Wagner MM. 1997. Accuracy of data in computer-based patient records. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 5:342-55
15. Ending the document game: connecting and transforming your healthcare through information technology. 2005. Comm. Syst. Interoper. Rep. Washington, DC: US GPO
16. Stead WW, Kelly BJ, Kolodner RM. 2005. Achievable steps toward building a national health information infrastructure in the United States. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 12:113-20
17. Stead WW, Hammond WE. 1988. Computer-based medical records the centerpiece of TMR. M.D. Comput. 5(5):48-62
18. Stead WW, Miller RA, Musen MA, et al. 2000. Integration and beyond: linking information from disparate sources and into workflow. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 7:135-45
19. Jirjis J, Patel NR, Aronsky D, et al. 2003. Seeing stars: the creation of a core clinical support informatics product. Int. J. Healthcare Technol. Manag. 5(3/4/5):284-95
20. Fox S. 2005. Eight in ten internet users have looked for health information online, with increased interest in diet, fitness, drugs, health insurance, experimental treatments, and particular doctors and hospitals. Pew Internet. http://www.pewinternet.org
21. Information Rx Project: a joint project of the ACP Foundation and the National Library of Medicine. 2006. Am. Coll. Physicians. http://foundation.acponline.org
22. Tang PC, Ash JS, Bates DW, et al. 2006. Personal health records: definitions, benefits, and strategies for overcoming barriers to adoption. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 13:121-26
23. Harris Interact. 2004. Two in five adults keep personal or family health records and almost everybody thinks this is a good idea. http://www.info@harrisinteractive.com
24. Kane B, Sands D. 1998. Guidelines for the clinical use of electronic mail with patients. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 5:104-11
25. Liederman EM, Lee JC, Baquero VH, et al. 2005. Patient-physician Web messaging: the impact on message volume and satisfaction. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 20:52-57
26. Ross SE, Lin CT. 2003. The effects of promoting patient access to medical records: a review. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 10:129-38