Electronic Medical Record Features and Seven Quality of Care Measures in Physician Offices

American Journal of Medical Quality

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 44-52

  Hsiao, Chun Ju ^a   Marsteller, Jill A ^b   Simon, Alan E ^a  

^a NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

ambulatory care; electronic medical record; informatics; quality of health care

Indexed keywords

ANTIINFECTIVE AGENT;

AMBULATORY CARE; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; INAPPROPRIATE PRESCRIBING; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PHYSICIAN; REMINDER SYSTEM; RESPIRATORY TRACT INFECTIONS; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UNITED STATES;

AMBULATORY CARE; ANTI-BACTERIAL AGENTS; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; HUMANS; INAPPROPRIATE PRESCRIBING; PHYSICIANS; QUALITY INDICATORS, HEALTH CARE; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; REMINDER SYSTEMS; RESPIRATORY TRACT INFECTIONS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84928697794     PISSN: 10628606     EISSN: 1555824X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1062860613483870     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
2. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
3. The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
4. Buntin MB Jain SH Blumenthal D. Health information technology: laying the infrastructure for national health reform. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010; 29: 1214-1219.
5. Chaudhry B Wang J Wu S, et al. Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med. 2006; 144: 742-752.
6. Goldzweig CL Towfigh A Maglione M Shekelle PG. Costs and benefits of health information technology: new trends from the literature. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009; 28: w282-w293.
7. Buntin MB Burke MF Hoaglin MC Blumenthal D. The benefits of health information technology: a review of the recent literature shows predominantly positive results. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011; 30: 464-471.
8. Keyhani S Hebert PL Ross JS Federman A Zhu CW Siu AL. Electronic health record components and the quality of care. Med Care. 2008; 46: 1267-1272.
9. Linder JA Ma J Bates DW Middleton B Stafford RS. Electronic health record use and the quality of ambulatory care in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2007; 167: 1400-1405.
10. Romano MJ Stafford RS. Electronic health records and clinical decision support systems: impact on national ambulatory care quality. Arch Intern Med. 2011; 171: 897-903.
11. Samal L Linder JA Lipsitz SR Hicks LS. Electronic health records, clinical decision support, and blood pressure control. Am J Manag Care. 2011; 17: 626-632.
12. Poon EG Wright A Simon SR, et al. Relationship between use of electronic health record features and health care quality: results of a statewide survey. Med Care. 2010; 48: 203-209.
13. Crosson JC Bazemore AW Phillips RL Jr. EHR implementation without meaningful use can lead to worse outcomes. Am Fam Physician. 2011; 84: 1220.
14. Crosson JC Ohman-Strickland PA Cohen DJ Clark EC Crabtree BF. Typical electronic health record use in primary care practices and the quality of diabetes care. Ann Fam Med. 2012; 10: 221-227.
15. Crosson JC Ohman-Strickland PA Hahn KA, et al. Electronic medical records and diabetes quality of care: results from a sample of family medicine practices. Ann Fam Med. 2007; 5: 209-215.
16. Hsiao CJ Cherry DK Beatty PC Rechtsteiner EA. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2007 summary. Natl Health Stat Report. 2010;(27):1-32.
17. Smith SC Jr Allen J Blair SN, et al. AHA/ACC guidelines for secondary prevention for patients with coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease: 2006 update endorsed by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 47: 2130-2139.
18. US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1996.
19. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The Fourth Report on the Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure in Children and Adolescents. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2005.
20. Chobanian AV Bakris GL Black HR, et al. Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7). Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Health, National Health, Lung, and Blood Institute; 2003.
21. Beers MH. Explicit criteria for determining potentially inappropriate medication use by the elderly. An update. Arch Intern Med. 1997; 157: 1531-1536.
22. Zhan C Sangl J Bierman AS. Potentially inappropriate medication use in the community-dwelling elderly: findings from the 1996 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. JAMA. 2001; 286: 2823-2829.
23. Snow V Mottur-Pilson C Gonzales R. Principles of appropriate antibiotic use for treatment of nonspecific upper respiratory tract infections in adults. Ann Intern Med. 2001; 134: 487-489.
24. Fick DM Cooper JW Wade WE Waller JL Maclean JR Beers MH. Updating the Beers criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults: results of a US consensus panel of experts. Arch Intern Med. 2003; 163: 2716-2724.
25. Blumenthal D. New EHR adoption statistics. http://www.healthit.gov/buzz-blog/ehr-case-studies/new-ehr-adoption-statistics/. Accessed March 4, 2013.
26. Ma J Stafford RS. Quality of US outpatient care: temporal changes and racial/ethnic disparities. Arch Intern Med. 2005; 165: 1354-1361.
27. Donabedian A. Methods for deriving criteria for assessing the quality of medical care. Med Care Rev. 1980; 37: 653-698.
28. Burt CW Sisk JE. Which physicians and practices are using electronic medical records? Health Aff (Millwood). 2005; 24: 1334-1343.
29. Gaal S van den Hombergh P Verstappen W Wensing M. Patient safety features are more present in larger primary care practices. Health Policy. 2010; 97: 87-91.
30. Russell G Dahrouge S Tuna M Hogg W Geneau R Gebremichael G. Getting it all done. Organizational factors linked with comprehensive primary care. Fam Pract. 2010; 27: 535-541.
31. Ashworth M Schofield P Seed P Durbaba S Kordowicz M Jones R. Identifying poorly performing general practices in England: a longitudinal study using data from the quality and outcomes framework. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2011; 16: 21-27.
32. Deyo RA Cherkin DC Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992; 45: 613-619.
33. US Department of Health & Human Services. Secretary Sebelius announces final rules to support “meaningful use” of electronic health records. http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/07/20100713a.html. Accessed March 4, 2013.
34. Cebul RD Love TE Jain AK Hebert CJ. Electronic health records and quality of diabetes care. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365: 825-833.