Dataset Information

Characterizing physician EHR use with vendor derived data: a feasibility study and cross-sectional analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To derive 7 proposed core electronic health record (EHR) use metrics across 2 healthcare systems with different EHR vendor product installations and examine factors associated with EHR time.

Materials and methods

A cross-sectional analysis of ambulatory physicians EHR use across the Yale-New Haven and MedStar Health systems was performed for August 2019 using 7 proposed core EHR use metrics normalized to 8 hours of patient scheduled time.

Results

Five out of 7 proposed metrics could be measured in a population of nonteaching, exclusively ambulatory physicians. Among 573 physicians (Yale-New Haven N = 290, MedStar N = 283) in the analysis, median EHR-Time8 was 5.23 hours. Gender, additional clinical hours scheduled, and certain medical specialties were associated with EHR-Time8 after adjusting for age and health system on multivariable analysis. For every 8 hours of scheduled patient time, the model predicted these differences in EHR time (P < .001, unless otherwise indicated): female physicians +0.58 hours; each additional clinical hour scheduled per month -0.01 hours; practicing cardiology -1.30 hours; medical subspecialties -0.89 hours (except gastroenterology, P = .002); neurology/psychiatry -2.60 hours; obstetrics/gynecology -1.88 hours; pediatrics -1.05 hours (P = .001); sports/physical medicine and rehabilitation -3.25 hours; and surgical specialties -3.65 hours.

Conclusions

For every 8 hours of scheduled patient time, ambulatory physicians spend more than 5 hours on the EHR. Physician gender, specialty, and number of clinical hours practicing are associated with differences in EHR time. While audit logs remain a powerful tool for understanding physician EHR use, additional transparency, granularity, and standardization of vendor-derived EHR use data definitions are still necessary to standardize EHR use measurement.

SUBMITTER: Melnick ER

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8279798 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective:The federal electronic health record (EHR) certification process was intended to ensure a baseline level of system quality and the ability to support meaningful use criteria. We sought to assess whether there was variation across EHR vendors in the degree to which hospitals using products from those vendors were able to achieve high levels of performance on meaningful use criteria. Materials and Methods:We created a cross-sectional national hospital sample from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology EHR Products Used for Meaningful Use Attestation public use file and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Medicare EHR Incentive Program Eligible Hospitals public use file. We used regression models to assess the relationship between vendor and hospital performance on 6 Stage 2 Meaningful Use criteria, controlling for hospital characteristics. We also calculated how much variation in performance is explained by vendor choice. Results:We found significant associations between specific vendor and level of hospital performance for all 6 meaningful use criteria. Epic was associated with significantly higher performance on 5 of the 6 criteria; relationships for other vendors were mixed, with some associated with significantly worse performance on multiple criteria. EHR vendor choice accounted for between 7% and 34% of performance variation across the 6 criteria. Discussion:A nontrivial proportion of variation in hospital meaningful use performance is explained by vendor choice, and certain vendors are more often associated with better meaningful use performance than others. Our results suggest that policy-makers should improve the certification process by including more "real-world" scenario testing and provider feedback or ratings to reduce this variation. Hospitals can use these results to guide interactions with vendors. Conclusion:Vendor choice accounts for a meaningful proportion of variation in hospital meaningful use performance, and specific vendors are consistently associated with higher or lower performance across criteria.

Project description:BackgroundPhysician burnout has a direct impact on the delivery of high-quality health care, with health information technology tools such as electronic health records (EHRs) adding to the burden of practice inefficiencies.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine the extent of burnout among physicians and learners (residents and fellows); identify significant EHR-related contributors of physician burnout; and explore the differences between physicians and learners with regard to EHR-related factors such as time spent in EHR, documentation styles, proficiency, training, and perceived usefulness. In addition, the study aimed to address gaps in the EHR-related burnout research methodologies by determining physicians' patterns of EHR use through usage logs.MethodsThis study used a cross-sectional survey methodology and a review of administrative data for back-end log measures of survey respondents' EHR use, which was conducted at a large Canadian academic mental health hospital. Chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used to examine the association of EHR-related factors with general physician burnout. The survey was sent out to 474 individuals between May and June 2019, including physicians (n=407), residents (n=53), and fellows (n=14), and we measured physician burnout and perceptions of EHR stressors (along with demographic and practice characteristics).ResultsOur survey included 208 respondents, including physicians (n=176) and learners (n=32). The response rate was 43.2% for physicians (full-time: 156/208, 75.0%; part-time: 20/199, 10.1%), and 48% (32/67) for learners. A total of 25.6% (45/176) of practicing physicians and 19% (6/32) of learners reported having one or more symptoms of burnout, and 74.5% (155/208) of all respondents who reported burnout symptoms identified the EHR as a contributor. Lower satisfaction and higher frustration with the EHRs were significantly associated with perceptions of EHR contributing toward burnout. Physicians' and learners' experiences with the EHR, gathered through open-ended survey responses, identified challenges around the intuitiveness and usability of the technology as well as workflow issues. Metrics gathered from back-end usage logs demonstrated a 13.6-min overestimation in time spent on EHRs per patient and a 5.63-hour overestimation of after-hours EHR time, when compared with self-reported survey data.ConclusionsThis study suggests that the use of EHRs is a perceived contributor to physician burnout. There should be a focus on combating physician burnout by reducing the unnecessary administrative burdens of EHRs through efficient implementation of systems and effective postimplementation strategies.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the limitations of the existing physician directory in measuring electronic health record adoption rates among a cohort of Connecticut physicians.DesignA population-based mailing assessed the number of physicians practising in Connecticut.MeasurementsInformation about practice site, practises pertaining to storing of patient information, sources of revenue and preferred method for receiving survey. Practice status in Connecticut, measured by yes and no. Demographic information was collected on gender, year of birth, race and ethnicity.ResultsThe response rate for the postcard mailing was 19% (3105/16 462). Of the 16 462 unduplicated consumers, 233 (1%) were retired and 5828 (35%) did not practise in Connecticut. Of the 3105 valid postcard responses we received, 2159 were for physicians practising in Connecticut. Nine (0.4%) of these responses did not specify a preferred method for receiving the full physician survey; 91 physicians refused to participate in the survey; 2159 surveys were sent out using each physician's requested method for receiving the survey, that is, web-based, regular mail or telephone. As of August 2012, 898 physicians had returned surveys, resulting in a response rate of 42%.LimitationsThe postcard response rate based on the unduplicated lists adjusted for exclusions, such as death, retired and do not practise in Connecticut, is 30%, which is low. We may be missing physicians' population which could greatly affect the indicators being used to measure change in electronic health record adoption rates.ConclusionsIt is difficult to obtain an accurate physician count of practising physicians in Connecticut from the existing lists. States that are participating in the projects funded under various Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) initiatives must focus on getting an accurate count of the physicians practising in their state, since their progress is being measured based on this key number.

Project description:BackgroundCardiac stress testing, particularly with imaging, has been the focus of debates about rising health care costs, inappropriate use, and patient safety in the context of radiation exposure.ObjectiveTo determine whether U.S. trends in cardiac stress test use may be attributable to population shifts in demographics, risk factors, and provider characteristics and evaluate whether racial/ethnic disparities exist in physician decision making.DesignAnalyses of repeated cross-sectional data.SettingNational Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (1993 to 2010).PatientsAdults without coronary heart disease.MeasurementsCardiac stress test referrals and inappropriate use.ResultsBetween 1993 to 1995 and 2008 to 2010, the annual number of U.S. ambulatory visits in which a cardiac stress test was ordered or performed increased from 28 per 10,000 visits to 45 per 10,000 visits. No trend was found toward more frequent testing after adjustment for patient characteristics, risk factors, and provider characteristics (P = 0.134). Cardiac stress tests with imaging comprised a growing portion of all tests, increasing from 59% in 1993 to 1995 to 87% in 2008 to 2010. At least 34.6% were probably inappropriate, with associated annual costs and harms of $501 million and 491 future cases of cancer. Authors found no evidence of a lower likelihood of black patients receiving a cardiac stress test (odds ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.21]) than white patients, although some evidence of disparity in Hispanic patients was found (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.55 to 1.02]).LimitationCross-sectional design with limited clinical data.ConclusionNational growth in cardiac stress test use can largely be explained by population and provider characteristics, but use of imaging cannot. Physician decision making about cardiac stress test use does not seem to contribute to racial/ethnic disparities in cardiovascular disease.Primary funding sourceNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

Project description:ObjectiveTo test for correlation between the growth in adoption of ambulatory electronic health records (EHRs) in the United States during 2010-2013 and hospital admissions and readmissions for elderly Medicare beneficiaries with at least one of four common ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (ACSCs).Data sourcesSK&A Information Services Survey of Physicians, American Hospital Association General Survey and Information Technology Supplement; and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Chronic Conditions Data Warehouse Geographic Variation Database for 2010 through 2013.Study designFixed effects model estimated the relationship between hospital referral region (HRR) level measures of physician EHR adoption and ACSC admissions and readmissions. Analyzed rates of admissions and 30-day readmissions per beneficiary at the HRR level (restricting the denominator to beneficiaries in our sample), adjusted for differences across HRRs in Medicare beneficiary age, gender, and race. Calculated physician EHR adoption rates as the percentage of physicians in each HRR who report using EHR in ambulatory care settings.Principal findingsEach percentage point increase in market-level EHR adoption by physicians is correlated with a statistically significant decline of 1.06 ACSC admissions per 10,000 beneficiaries over the study period, controlling for the overall time trend as well as market fixed effects and characteristics that changed over time. This finding implies 26,689 fewer ACSC admissions in our study population during 2010 to 2013 that were related to physician ambulatory EHR adoption. This represents 3.2 percent fewer ACSC admissions relative to the total number of such admissions in our study population in 2010. We found no evidence of a correlation between EHR use, by either physicians or hospitals, and hospital readmissions at either the market level or hospital level.ConclusionsThis study extends knowledge about EHRs' relationship with quality of care and utilization. The results suggest a significant association between EHR use in ambulatory care settings and ACSC admissions that is consistent with policy goals to improve the quality of ambulatory care for patients with chronic conditions. The null findings for readmissions support the need for improved interoperability between ambulatory care EHRs and hospital EHRs to realize improvements in readmissions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The implementation of an electronic health record (EHR) with structured and standardized recording of patient data can improve data quality and reusability. Whether and how users perceive these advantages may depend on the preimplementation situation. OBJECTIVE:To determine whether the influence of implementing a structured and standardized EHR on perceived EHR use, data quality, and data reuse differed for users working with paper-based records versus a legacy EHR before implementation. METHODS:We used an electronic questionnaire to measure users' perception before implementation (2014), expected change, and perceived change after implementation (2016) on three themes. We included all health care professionals in two university hospitals in the Netherlands. Before jointly implementing the same structured and standardized EHR, one hospital used paper-based records and the other a legacy EHR. We compared perceptions before and after implementation for both centers. Additionally, we compared expected benefit with perceived benefit. RESULTS:We received 7,611 responses (4,537 before and 3,074 after implementation) of which 5,707 (75%) were from professionals reading and recording patient data. A total of 975 (13%) professionals responded to both before and after implementation questionnaires. In the formerly paper-based center staff perceived improvement in all themes after implementation. The legacy EHR center experienced deterioration of perceived EHR use and data reuse, and only one improvement in EHR use. In both centers, for half of the aspects at least 45% of responders experienced results worse than expected preimplementation. CONCLUSION:Our results indicate that the preimplementation recording practice impacts the perceived effect of the implementation of a structured and standardized EHR. For almost half of the respondents the new EHR did not meet their expectations. Especially legacy EHR centers need to investigate the expectations as these might be different and less clear cut than those in paper-based centers. These expectations need to be addressed appropriately to achieve a successful implementation.