The impact of electronic health records on people with diabetes in three different emergency departments

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Volumn 21, Issue E2, 2014, Pages

  Speedie, Stuart M ^a   Park, Young Taek ^b   Du, Jing ^c   Theera Ampornpunt, Nawanan ^d   Bershow, Barry A ^e   Gensinger Jr , Raymond A ^a   Routhe, Daniel T ^f   Connelly, Donald P ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b Health Insurance Review Agency   (South Korea)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^d MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY   (Thailand)

^e Bershow Consulting   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIABETES MELLITUS; DIABETIC PATIENT; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; EMERGENCY WARD; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; LABORATORY TEST; LENGTH OF STAY; MORTALITY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY;

DIABETES; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT; EVALUATION; HEALTH OUTCOME ASSESSMENT;

AGED; CLINICAL LABORATORY TECHNIQUES; DIABETES MELLITUS; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; EMERGENCY SERVICE, HOSPITAL; FEMALE; HEALTH RESOURCES; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMANS; LENGTH OF STAY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MINNESOTA; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84893553123     PISSN: 10675027     EISSN: 1527974X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001804     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National diabetes fact sheet: national estimates and general information on diabetes and prediabetes in the United States, 2011. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011.
2. HCUPnet: statistics on emergency department use. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. http://hcupnet.ahrq.gov (accessed 28 Feb 2013).
3. Clancy CM. Care transitions: a threat and an opportunity for patient safety. Am J Med Qual 2006;21:415-17.
4. Stiell A, Forster AJ, Stiell IG, et al. Prevalence of information gaps in the emergency department and the effect on patient outcomes. CMAJ 2003;169:1023-8.
5. Shapiro JS, Kannry J, Kushniruk AW, et al. New York clinical information exchange (NYCLIX) clinical advisory subcommittee. Emergency physicians' perceptions of health information exchange. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007;14:700-5.
6. Feied CF, Handler JA, Smith MS, et al. Clinical information systems: instant ubiquitous clinical data for error reduction and improved clinical outcomes. Acad Emerg Med 2004;11:1162-9.
7. Shapiro JS, Kannry J, Lipton M, et al. Approaches to patient health information exchange and their impact on emergency medicine. Ann Emerg Med 2006;48:426-32.
8. Blumenthal D. Launching HITECH. N Engl J Med 2010;362:382-5.
9. Overhage JM, Dexter PR, Perkins SM, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of clinical information shared from another institution. Ann Emerg Med 2002;39:14-23.
10. Johnson KB, Gadd CS, Aronsky D, et al. The MidSouth eHealth alliance: use and impact in the first year. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2008;6:333-7.
11. Vest JR. Health information exchange and healthcare utilization. J Med Syst 2009;33:223-31.
12. Connelly DP, Park YT, Du J, et al. The impact of electronic health records on care of heart failure patients in the emergency room. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012;19:334-40.
13. Frisse ME, Johnson KB, Nian H, et al. The financial impact of health information exchange on emergency department care. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012;19:328-33.
14. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longtitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:373-83.
15. Charlson ME, Charlson RE, Peterson JC, et al. The Charlson comorbidity index is adapted to predict costs of chronic disease in primary care patients. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:1234-40.
16. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45:613-19.
17. Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care 2005;43:1130-9.
18. Manning WG, Mullahy J. Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform? J Health Econ 2001;20:461-94.
19. Liu W, Cela J. Count data models in SAS. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 2008. http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/forum2008/371-2008.pdf (accessed 5 Apr 2010).
20. Julious SA, Mullee MA. Confounding and Simpson's paradox. BMJ 1994;309:1480-1.
21. Du J, Park YT, Theera-Ampornpunt N, et al. The use of count data models in biomedical informatics evaluation research. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012;19:39-44.
22. McCullough JS, Casey M, Moscovice I, et al. The effect of health information technology on quality in U.S. hospitals. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010;29:647-54.
23. Stair TO. Reduction of redundant laboratory orders by access to computerized patient records. J Emerg Med 1998;16:895-7.
24. Smellie WSA. Demand management and test request rationalization. Ann Clin Biochem 2012;49:323-36.
25. Vest JR, Jasperson JS. How are health professionals using health information exchange systems? Measuring usage for evaluation and system improvement. J Med Syst 2012;36:3195-204.
26. Unertl KM, Johnson KB, Lorenzi NM. Health information exchange technology on the front lines of healthcare: workflow factors and patterns of use. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012;19:392-400.
27. Li B, Evans D, Faris P, et al. Risk adjusted performance of Charleson and Elixhauser comorbidities in ICD-9 and ICSD-10 administrative databases. BMC Heatlh Serv Res 2008;8:12.