Factors impacting providers' perceptions regarding a midwestern university-based EMR

Telemedicine and e-Health

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 391-397

  Whitten, Pamela ^a   Buis, Lorraine ^b   Mackert, Michael ^c  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Postdoctoral Research Associate VA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA REDUCTION; HEALTH CARE; MEDICAL COMPUTING; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; TELEMEDICINE;

ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS (EMR) SYSTEMS; STRUCTURAL BARRIERS;

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY;

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; CULTURAL FACTOR; DEMOGRAPHY; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; FEMALE; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL EDUCATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SATISFACTION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL; CONSUMER; MEDICAL RECORD; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTION; PHYSICIAN; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT;

ADULT; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICAL RECORDS SYSTEMS, COMPUTERIZED; MICHIGAN; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTION; PHYSICIANS;

EID: 38349174773     PISSN: 15305627     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2006.0057     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Greenes RA, Barnett GO, Klein SW, Robbins A, Prior RE. Recording, retrieval, and review of medical data by physician-computer interaction. N Engl J Med 1970;282:307-315.
2. Berner ES, Detmer DE, Simborg D. Will the wave finally break? A brief view of the adoption of electronic medical records in the United States. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005;12:3-7.
3. National Center for Health Statistics. Electronic medical records use by office based physicians: United States, 2005. 2006. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/electronic/electronic.htm (Accessed September 5, 2006).
4. Gans D, Kralewski J, Hammons T, Dowd B. Medical groups' adoption of electronic health records and information systems. Health Aff 2005;24:1323-1333.
5. Lee J, Cain C, Young S, Chockley N, Burstin H. The adoption gap: Health information technology in small physician practices. Health Aff 2005;24:1364-1366.
6. Audet AM, Doty MM, Peugh J, Shamasdin J, Zapert K, Schoenbaum S. Information technologies: When will they make it into physicians' black bags? Med Gen Med 2004;6:2.
7. Shortliffe EH. Strategic action in health information technology: Why the obvious has taken so long. Health Aff 2005;24:1222-1233.
8. Brynjolfsson E, Hitt L. Paradox lost? Firm-level evidence on the returns to information systems spending. Manage Sci 1996;42:541-558.
9. Hitt L, Brynjolfsson E. Productivity, business profitability, and consumer surplus: Three different measures of information technology value. MIS Quarterly 1996;20:121-142.
10. Bharadwaj AS, Bharadwaj S, Konsysnki B. Information technology effects on firm performance as measured by Tobin's q. Manage Sci 1999;45:1008-1024.
11. Middleton B, Hammond WE, Brennan PF, Cooper GF. Accelerating U.S. EHR adoption: How to get there from here. Recommendations based on the 2004 ACMI Retreat. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005;12:13-19.
12. Wang SJ, Middleton B, Prosser LA, Bardon CG, Spurr CD, Carchidi PJ, Kittler J, Goldszer RC, Fairchild DG, Sussman, AJ, Kuperman GJ, Bates DW. A cost-benefit analysis of electronic medical records in primary care. Am J Med 2003;114:397-403.
13. Birkmeyer C, Lee J, Bates DW, Birkmyer JD. Will electronic order entry reduce health care costs? Eff Clin Pract 2002;5:67-74.
14. Hillestad R, Bigelow J, Bower A, Girosi F, Meili R, Scoville R, Taylor R. Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs. Health Aff 2005;24:1103-1117.
15. Ash JS, Bates DW. Factors and forces impacting EHR system adoption: Report of a 2004 ACMI discussion. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005;12:8-12.
16. Kibbe DC, Phillips RL Jr, Green LA. The continuity of care record. Am Fam Physician 2004;70:1220, 1222-1223.
17. van der Lei J, Duisterhout JS, Westerhof HP, van der Does E, Cromme PV, Boon WM, et al. The introduction of computer-based patient records in The Netherlands. Ann Intern Med 1993;119:1036-1041.
18. Harris Interactive. European physicians especially in Sweden, Netherlands and Denmark, lead U.S. in use of electronic medical records. 2002. Available at http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/newsletters/healthnews/ HI_HealthCareNews2002vol2_Iss16.pdf (Accessed February 20, 2006).
19. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. 2006. Available at http://www.hhs.gov/healthit (Accessed February 20, 2006).
20. Loomis GA, Ries JS, Saywell RM Jr, Thakker NR. If electronic medical records are so great, why aren't family physicians using them? J Fam Pract 2002;51:636-641.
21. Aydin CE, Rosen PN, Felitti VJ. Transforming information use in preventive medicine: Learning to balance technology with the art of caring. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care 1994:563-567.
22. Overhage J, Tierney WM, McDonald CJ, Pickett KE. Computer-assisted order entry: impact on intern time use. Clin Res 1991;39:794 (Abstract).
23. Overhage JM, Perkins S, Tierney WM, McDonald CJ. Controlled trial of direct physician order entry: Effects on physicians' time utilization in ambulatory primary care internal medicine practices. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2001;8:361-371.
24. Massachusetts Medical Society. MMS survey: Most doctors are slow to incorporate technology into practices. 2003. Available at http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Search&template=/CM/ HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=10048 (Accessed February 21, 2006).
25. Michigan State University. Who are we? 2006. Available at http://www.healthteam.msu.edu/whoarewe.htm (Accessed February 20, 2006).
26. Lærum H, Ellingsen G, Faxvaag A. Doctors' use of electronic medical records in hospitals: Cross sectional survey. BMJ 2001;323:1344- 1348.