Catherine M. DesRoches

Use of electronic health records in U.S. hospitals.

BACKGROUND Despite a consensus that the use of health information technology should lead to more efficient, safer, and higher-quality care, there are no reliable estimates of the prevalence of adoption of electronic health records in U.S. hospitals. METHODS We surveyed all acute care hospitals that are members of the American Hospital Association for the presence of specific electronic-record functionalities. Using a definition of electronic health records based on expert consensus, we determined the proportion of hospitals that had such systems in their clinical areas. We also examined the relationship of adoption of electronic health records to specific hospital characteristics and factors that were reported to be barriers to or facilitators of adoption. RESULTS On the basis of responses from 63.1% of hospitals surveyed, only 1.5% of U.S. hospitals have a comprehensive electronic-records system (i.e., present in all clinical units), and an additional 7.6% have a basic system (i.e., present in at least one clinical unit). Computerized provider-order entry for medications has been implemented in only 17% of hospitals. Larger hospitals, those located in urban areas, and teaching hospitals were more likely to have electronic-records systems. Respondents cited capital requirements and high maintenance costs as the primary barriers to implementation, although hospitals with electronic-records systems were less likely to cite these barriers than hospitals without such systems. CONCLUSIONS The very low levels of adoption of electronic health records in U.S. hospitals suggest that policymakers face substantial obstacles to the achievement of health care performance goals that depend on health information technology. A policy strategy focused on financial support, interoperability, and training of technical support staff may be necessary to spur adoption of electronic-records systems in U.S. hospitals.

Electronic Health Records’ Limited Successes Suggest More Targeted Uses

Understanding whether electronic health records, as currently adopted, improve quality and efficiency has important implications for how best to employ the estimated

Research Commentary---The Digital Transformation of Healthcare: Current Status and the Road Ahead

20 billion in health information technology incentives authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. We examined electronic health record adoption in U.S. hospitals and the relationship to quality and efficiency. Across a large number of metrics examined, the relationships were modest at best and generally lacked statistical or clinical significance. However, the presence of clinical decision support was associated with small quality gains. Our findings suggest that to drive substantial gains in quality and efficiency, simply adopting electronic health records is likely to be insufficient. Instead, policies are needed that encourage the use of electronic health records in ways that will lead to improvements in care.

The Public's Response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in Toronto and the United States

As the United States expends extraordinary efforts toward the digitization of its health-care system, and as policy makers across the globe look to information technology (IT) as a means of making health-care systems safer, more affordable, and more accessible, a rare and remarkable opportunity has emerged for the information systems research community to leverage its in-depth knowledge to both advance theory and influence practice and policy. Although health IT (HIT) has tremendous potential to improve quality and reduce costs in healthcare, significant challenges need to be overcome to fully realize this potential. In this commentary, we survey the landscape of existing studies on HIT to provide an overview of the current status of HIT research. We then identify three major areas that warrant further research: (1) HIT design, implementation, and meaningful use; (2) measurement and quantification of HIT payoff and impact; and (3) extending the traditional realm of HIT. We discuss specific research questions in each domain and suggest appropriate methods to approach them. We encourage information systems scholars to become active participants in the global discourse on health-care transformation through IT.

Perspectives of Physicians and Nurse Practitioners on Primary Care Practice

Using data from 13 surveys of the public, this article compares the publics response to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in Ontario (specifically, Toronto), the other Canadian provinces, and the United States, which had substantial differences in the number of SARS cases. Findings suggest that, even at a relatively low level of spread among the population, the SARS outbreak had a significant psychological and economic impact. They also suggest that the success of efforts to educate the public about the risk of SARS and appropriate precautions was mixed. Some of the community-wide problems with SARS might have been avoided with better communication by public health officials and clinicians.

Electronic health records in small physician practices: availability, use, and perceived benefits

BACKGROUND The U.S. health care system is at a critical juncture in health care workforce planning. The nation has a shortage of primary care physicians. Policy analysts have proposed expanding the supply and scope of practice of nurse practitioners to address increased demand for primary care providers. These proposals are controversial. METHODS From November 23, 2011, to April 9, 2012, we conducted a national postal-mail survey of 972 clinicians (505 physicians and 467 nurse practitioners) in primary care practice. Questionnaire domains included scope of work, practice characteristics, and attitudes about the effect of expanding the role of nurse practitioners in primary care. The response rate was 61.2%. RESULTS Physicians reported working longer hours, seeing more patients, and earning higher incomes than did nurse practitioners. A total of 80.9% of nurse practitioners reported working in a practice with a physician, as compared with 41.4% of physicians who reported working with a nurse practitioner. Nurse practitioners were more likely than physicians to believe that they should lead medical homes, be allowed hospital admitting privileges, and be paid equally for the same clinical services. When asked whether they agreed with the statement that physicians provide a higher-quality examination and consultation than do nurse practitioners during the same type of primary care visit, 66.1% of physicians agreed and 75.3% of nurse practitioners disagreed. CONCLUSIONS Current policy recommendations that are aimed at expanding the supply and scope of practice of primary care nurse practitioners are controversial. Physicians and nurse practitioners do not agree about their respective roles in the delivery of primary care. (Funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and others.).

More Than Half of US Hospitals Have At Least A Basic EHR, But Stage 2 Criteria Remain Challenging For Most

OBJECTIVE To examine variation in the adoption of electronic health record (EHR) functionalities and their use patterns, barriers to adoption, and perceived benefits by physician practice size. DESIGN Mailed survey of a nationally representative random sample of practicing physicians identified from the Physician Masterfile of the American Medical Association. Measurements We measured, stratified by practice size: (1) availability of EHR functionalities, (2) functionality use, (3) barriers to the adoption and use of EHR, and (4) impact of the EHR on the practice and quality of patient care. RESULTS With a response rate of 62%, we found that < 2% of physicians in solo or two-physician (small) practices reported a fully functional EHR and 5% reported a basic EHR compared with 13% of physicians from 11+ group (largest group) practices with a fully functional system and 26% with a basic system. Between groups, a 21-46% difference in specific functionalities available was reported. Among adopters there were moderate to large differences in the use of the EHR systems. Financial barriers were more likely to be reported by smaller practices, along with concerns about future obsolescence. These differences were sizable (13-16%) and statistically significant (p < 0.001). All adopters reported similar benefits. Limitations Although we have adjusted for response bias, influences may still exist. CONCLUSION Our study found that physicians in small practices have lower levels of EHR adoption and that these providers were less likely to use these systems. Ensuring that unique barriers are addressed will be critical to the widespread meaningful use of EHR systems among small practices.

Physician professionalism and changes in physician-industry relationships from 2004 to 2009.

The national effort to promote the adoption and meaningful use of electronic health records (EHRs) is well under way. However, 2014 marks an important transition: For many hospitals, penalties will be assessed in fiscal year 2015 for failing to meet federal meaningful-use criteria by the end of fiscal year 2014. We used recent data from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey of Hospitals--IT Supplement to assess progress and challenges. EHR adoption among US hospitals continues to rise steeply: 59 percent now have at least a basic EHR. Small and rural hospitals continue to lag behind their better resourced counterparts. Most hospitals are able to meet many of the stage 2 meaningful-use criteria, but only 5.8 percent of hospitals are able to meet them all. Several criteria, including sharing care summaries with other providers and providing patients with online access to their data, will require attention from EHR vendors to ensure that the necessary functions are available and additional effort from many hospitals to make certain that these functionalities are used. Policy makers may want to consider new targeted strategies to ensure that all hospitals move toward meaningful use of EHRs.

Small, Nonteaching, And Rural Hospitals Continue To Be Slow In Adopting Electronic Health Record Systems

BACKGROUND One tenet of medical professionalism is managing conflicts of interest related to physician-industry relationships (PIRs). Since 2004 much has been done at the institutional, state, and national levels to limit PIRs. This study estimates the nature, extent, consequences, and changes in PIRs nationally. METHODS We performed a national survey of a stratified random sample of 2938 primary care physicians (internal medicine, family practice, and pediatrics) and specialists (cardiology, general surgery, psychiatry, and anesthesiology). A total of 1891 physicians completed the survey, yielding an overall response rate of 64.4%. The main outcome measure was prevalence of several types of PIRs and comparison with PIRs in 2004. RESULTS Overall, 83.8% of all respondents reported some type of relationship with industry during the previous year. Approximately two-thirds (63.8%) received drug samples, 70.6% food and beverages, 18.3% reimbursements, and 14.1% payments for professional services. Since 2004 the percentage of each of these benefits has decreased significantly. Higher rates of PIRs are significantly and inversely associated with low levels of Medicare spending. CONCLUSION Among a random sample of physicians, the prevalence of self-reported PIRs in 2009 was 83.8%, which was lower than in 2004.

Evidence Of An Emerging Digital Divide Among Hospitals That Care For The Poor

To achieve the goal of comprehensive health information record keeping and exchange among providers and patients, hospitals must have functioning electronic health record systems that contain patient demographics, care histories, lab results, and more. Using national survey data on US hospitals from 2011, the year federal incentives for the meaningful use of electronic health records began, we found that the share of hospitals with any electronic health record system increased from 15.1 percent in 2010 to 26.6 percent in 2011, and the share with a comprehensive system rose from 3.6 percent to 8.7 percent. The proportion able to meet our proxy criteria for meaningful use also rose; in 2011, 18.4 percent of hospitals had these functions in place in at least one unit and 11.2 percent had them across all clinical units. However, gaps in rates of adoption of at least a basic record system have increased substantially over the past four years based on hospital size, teaching status, and location. Small, nonteaching, and rural hospitals continue to adopt electronic health record systems more slowly than other types of hospitals. In sum, this is mixed news for policy makers, who should redouble their efforts among hospitals that appear to be moving slowly and ensure that policies do not further widen gaps in adoption. A more robust infrastructure for information exchange needs to be developed, and possibly a special program for the sizable minority of hospitals that have almost no health information technology at all.