Electronic Medical Records and Their Use in Health Promotion and Population Research of Cardiovascular Disease

Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 1-8

  Kite, Bobbie J ^a   Tangasi, Wilkister ^b   Kelley, Marjorie ^a   Bower, Julie K ^b   Foraker, Randi E ^a,b  

^a THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cardiovascular disease; Cardiovascular health; Electronic health records; Electronic medical records; EMR active use; EMR passive use; Health promotion; Population research; Risk factors

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

ALGORITHM; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; DECISION MAKING; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH PROMOTION; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; HYPERCHOLESTEROLEMIA; HYPERTENSION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PATIENT CARE; PREVALENCE; PUBLIC HEALTH; REVIEW; RISK FACTOR; SCREENING;

EID: 84958163488     PISSN: 19329520     EISSN: 19329563     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12170-014-0422-5     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Garret P, Sideman, J. EMR vs EHR—what is the difference? HealthIT.gov Buzz. 2011; http://www.healthit.gov/buzz-blog/electronic-health-and-medical-records/emr-vs-ehr-difference/.
2. Lloyd-Jones D, Adams RJ, Brown TM, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2010 update a report from the American heart association. Circulation. 2010;121(7):e46–e215.
3. Cohen JD, Aspry KE, Brown AS, et al. Use of health information technology (HIT) to improve statin adherence and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment in high-risk patients: proceedings from a workshop. J Clin Lipidol. 2013;7(6):573–609.
4. Heidenreich PA, Trogdon JG, Khavjou OA, et al. Forecasting the future of cardiovascular disease in the United States. Circulation. 2011;1(8):933–44.
5. Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2012 update. Circulation. 2012;125(1):e2.
6. Foraker RE, Olivo-Marston S, Allen NB. Lifestyle and primordial prevention of cardiovascular disease: challenges and opportunities. Curr Cardiovasc Risk Rep. 2012;6(6):520–7.
7. Hammermeister K, Bronsert M, Henderson WG, et al. Risk-adjusted comparison of blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) noncontrol in primary care offices. J Am Board Fam Med. 2013;26(6):658–68.
8. Foraker RE, Shoben AB, Lopetegui MA, et al. Assessment of life’s simple 7™ in the primary care setting. Contemp Clin Trials. 2014;38(2):182–9.
9. Green BB, Anderson ML, Cook AJ, et al. E-care for heart wellness: a feasibility trial to decrease blood pressure and cardiovascular risk. Am J Prev Med. 2014;46(4):368–77.
10. Roumia M, Steinhubl S. Improving cardiovascular outcomes using electronic health records. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2014;16(2):1–6.
11. Aspry KE, Furman R, Karalis DG, et al. Effect of health information technology interventions on lipid management in clinical practice: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Lipidol. 2013;7(6):546–60.
12. Goudev A. New insights into the management of hypertension and cardiovascular risk with angiotensin receptor blockers: observational studies help us? Open Cardiovasc Med J. 2014;8:35. This meta-analysis by Goudev sheds light on how EMRs allow for the possibility of increased sample sizes, enable faster algorithm generation, and intervention testing. These studies cover multiple countries and illustrate how the increased dissemination of findings from observational studies may help fill the knowledge gap created by the longevity of randomized control trial results.
13. Kleinberg S, Elhadad N. Lessons learned in replicating data-driven experiments in multiple medical systems and patient populations. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings. 2013:786 The authors’ research examined the longitudinal raw EMR data of 46299 patients to study CVD risk factors in both a rural and urban environment. Their study looked for mutual findings from the differing populations through the common EMR infrastructure.
14. Bardach NS, Wang JJ, De Leon SF, et al. Effect of pay-for-performance incentives on quality of care in small practices with electronic health records: a randomized trial. J Am Med Assoc. 2013;310(10):1051–9.
15. Begum R, Smith RM, Winther CH, et al. Small practices’ experience with EHR, quality measurement, and incentives. Am J Manag Care. 2013;19(10 Spec No):eSP12–8.
16. Wang JJ, Sebek KM, McCullough CM, et al. Sustained improvement in clinical preventive service delivery among independent primary care practices after implementing electronic health record systems. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2013;10.
17. Danford CP, Navar-Boggan AM, Stafford J, et al. The feasibility and accuracy of evaluating lipid management performance metrics using an electronic health record. Am Heart J. 2013;166(4):701–8.
18. Ferrario CM, Joyner J, Colby C, et al. The COSEHC™ global vascular risk management quality improvement program: first follow-up report. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2013;9:391.
19. Hissett J, Folks B, Coombs L, et al. Effects of changing guidelines on prescribing aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events. J Am Board Fam Med. 2014;27(1):78–86.
20. Persell SD, Eder M, Friesema E, et al. EHR‐based medication support and nurse‐led medication therapy management: rationale and design for a three‐arm clinic randomized trial. J Am Heart Assoc. 2013;2(5):e000311.
21. Benson GA, Sidebottom A, VanWormer JJ, et al. Heart beat connections: a rural community of solution for cardiovascular health. J Am Board Fam Med. 2013;26(3):299–310. The authors illustrate a common challenge related to EMR use. The original study aim was to identify individuals at CVD risk and manage through intervention through the EMR, but the EMR could not be utilized as planned. This was in large part because although it theoretically had the capability of tracking interventions, in reality the EMR did not function well for this aim in practical application.
22. Catalán-Ramos A, Verdú JM, Grau M, et al. Population prevalence and control of cardiovascular risk factors: what electronic medical records tell us. Aten Primaria. 2014;46(1):15–24. This study shows the capability of EMR collected data for use in determining CVD prevalence rates. This study in Spain included 2.1 million patient’s data to determine a 40% rate of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia prevalence. It was also discovered that 66% of the patient population had adequately controlled hypertension and hypercholesterolemia.
23. Rapsomaniki E, Timmis A, George J, et al. Blood pressure and incidence of twelve cardiovascular diseases: lifetime risks, healthy life-years lost, and age-specific associations in 1·25 million people. Lancet. 2014;383(9932):1899. This study was conducted in the UK and examined over 1.25 million patients from 225 primary care practices looking at the association between blood pressure and incidence of CVD. Their results surrounding associations between blood pressure and CVD were inconsistent with previous studies and suggested that blood pressure does not hold the association with as many CVD occurrences as was previously believed. Their results revealed that even with treatment through medication, the burden of hypertension is substantial.
24. Bielinski SJ, Olson JE, Pathak J, et al. Preemptive genotyping for personalized medicine: design of the right drug, right dose, right time—using genomic data to individualize treatment protocol. Circulation. 2014;89(1):25–33.
25. Violán C, Foguet-Boreu Q, Hermosilla-Pérez E, et al. Comparison of the information provided by electronic health records data and a population health survey to estimate prevalence of selected health conditions and multimorbidity. BMC Public Health. 2013;1:251.
26. Cross DS, McCarty CA, Steinhubl SR, et al. Development of a multi‐institutional cohort to facilitate cardiovascular disease biomarker validation using existing biorepository samples linked to electronic health records. Clin Cardiol. 2013;36(8):486–91.
27. NIH. Risk assessment tool. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. 2013. http://cvdrisk.nhlbi.nih.gov/.
28. Samal L, Linder JA, Lipsitz SR, et al. Electronic health records, clinical decision support, and blood pressure control. Am J Manag Care. 2011;17(9):626–32.
29. Katzan I, Speck M, Dopler C, et al. The knowledge program: an innovative, comprehensive electronic data capture system and warehouse. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings. 2011:683.
30. McCoy AB, Thomas EJ, Krousel-Wood M, et al. Clinical decision support alert appropriateness: a review and proposal for improvement. Ochsner J. 2014;14(2):195–202.
31. Battaglia L, Aronson MD, Neeman N, et al. A “Smart” heart failure sheet: using electronic medical records to guide clinical decision making. Am J Med. 2011;124(2):118–20.