Electronic health records and the evolution of diabetes care: a narrative review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Patel V
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4604525 | biostudies-other | 2015 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
Electronic health records and the evolution of diabetes care: a narrative review.
Patel Vishal V Reed Mary E ME Grant Richard W RW
Journal of diabetes science and technology 20150223 3
Adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) has increased dramatically since the 2009 implementation of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act. The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that the majority of U.S. hospitals and nearly half of U.S. health care professionals have implemented an EHR with advanced functionality.(1) The goals of the HITECH act were not only to incentivize the adoption of EHRs, but also t ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Evidence of the impact electronic health records (EHRs) have on clinical outcomes remains mixed. The impact of EHRs likely depends on the organizational context in which they are used. This study focuses on one aspect of the organizational context: cohesion of primary care teams. We examined whether team cohesion among primary care team members changed the association between EHR use and changes in clinical outcomes for patients with diabetes.Retrospective longitudinal study.We combined provider-reported primary care team cohesion with lab values for patients with diabetes collected during the staggered EHR implementation (2005-2009). We used multivariate regression models with patient-level fixed effects to assess whether team cohesion levels changed the association between outpatient EHR use and clinical outcomes for patients with diabetes. Subjects were comprised of 80,611 patients with diabetes, in whom we measured changes in glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C).For A1C, EHR use was associated with an average decrease of 0.11% for patients with higher-cohesion primary care teams compared with a decrease of 0.08% for patients with lower-cohesion teams (difference = 0.02% in A1C; 95% CI, 0.01%-0.03%). For LDL-C, EHR use was associated with a decrease of 2.15 mg/dL for patients with higher-cohesion primary care teams compared with a decrease of 1.42 mg/dL for patients with lower-cohesion teams (difference = 0.73 mg/dL; 95% CI, 0.41-1.11 mg/dL).Patients cared for by higher cohesion primary care teams experienced modest but statistically significantly greater EHR-related health outcome improvements, compared with patients cared for by providers practicing in lower cohesion teams.
| S-EPMC5130313 | biostudies-other
Project description:Long-term care (LTC) facilities are an important part of the health care industry, providing care to the fastest-growing group of the population. However, the adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) in LTC facilities lags behind other areas of the health care industry. One of the reasons for the lack of widespread adoption in the United States is that LTC facilities are not eligible for incentives under the Meaningful Use program. Implementation of an EHR system in an LTC facility can potentially enhance the quality of care, provided it is appropriately implemented, used, and maintained. Unfortunately, the lag in adoption of the EHR in LTC creates a paucity of literature on the benefits of EHR implementation in LTC facilities.The objective of this systematic review was to identify the potential benefits of implementing an EHR system in LTC facilities. The study also aims to identify the common conditions and EHR features that received favorable remarks from providers and the discrepancies that needed improvement to build up momentum across LTC settings in adopting this technology.The authors conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), and MEDLINE databases. Papers were analyzed by multiple referees to filter out studies not germane to our research objective. A final sample of 28 papers was selected to be included in the systematic review.Results of this systematic review conclude that EHRs show significant improvement in the management of documentation in LTC facilities and enhanced quality outcomes. Approximately 43% (12/28) of the papers reported a mixed impact of EHRs on the management of documentation, and 33% (9/28) of papers reported positive quality outcomes using EHRs. Surprisingly, very few papers demonstrated an impact on patient satisfaction, physician satisfaction, the length of stay, and productivity using EHRs.Overall, implementation of EHRs has been found to be effective in the few LTC facilities that have implemented them. Implementation of EHRs in LTC facilities caused improved management of clinical documentation that enabled better decision making.
| S-EPMC5640822 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionProviding patients with access to electronic health records (EHRs) has emerged as a promising solution to improve quality of care and safety. As the efforts to develop and implement EHR-based data sharing platforms mature and scale up worldwide, there is a need to evaluate the impact of these interventions and to weigh their relative risks and benefits, in order to inform evidence-based health policies. The aim of this work is to systematically characterise and appraise the demonstrated benefits and risks of sharing EHR with patients, by mapping them across the six domains of quality of care of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) analytical framework (ie, patient-centredness, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, equity and safety).Methods and analysisCINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, HMIC, Medline/PubMed and PsycINFO databases will be searched from January 1997 to August 2017. Primary outcomes will include measures related with the six domains of quality of care of the IOM analytical framework. The quality of the studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, the ROBINS-I Tool and the Drummond's checklist. A narrative synthesis will be conducted for all included studies. Subgroup analysis will be performed by domain of quality of care domain and by time scale (ie, short-term, medium-term or long-term impact). The body of evidence will be summarised in a Summary of Findings table and its strength assessed according to the GRADE criteria.Ethics and disseminationThis review does not require ethical approval as it will summarise published studies with non-identifiable data. This protocol complies with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines. Findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations, and patient partners will be included in summarising the research findings into lay summaries and reports.Prospero registration numberCRD42017070092.
| S-EPMC6091908 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe federal government is investing approximately $20 billion in electronic health records (EHRs), in part to address escalating health care costs. However, empirical evidence that provider use of EHRs decreases health care costs is limited.ObjectiveTo determine any association between EHRs and health care utilization.MethodsWe conducted a cohort study (2008-2009) in the Hudson Valley, a multi-payer, multiprovider community in New York State. We included 328 primary care physicians in predominantly small practices (median practice size four primary care physicians), who were caring for 223,772 patients. Data from an independent practice association was used to determine adoption of EHRs. Claims data aggregated across five commercial health plans was used to characterize seven types of health care utilization: primary care visits, specialist visits, radiology tests, laboratory tests, emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and readmissions. We used negative binomial regression to determine associations between EHR adoption and each utilization outcome, adjusting for ten physician characteristics.ResultsApproximately half (48%) of the physicians were using paper records and half (52%) were using EHRs. For every 100 patients seen by physicians using EHRs, there were 14 fewer specialist visits (adjusted p < 0.01) and 9 fewer radiology tests (adjusted p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in rates of primary care visits, laboratory tests, emergency department visits, hospitalizations or readmissions.ConclusionsPatients of primary care providers who used EHRs were less likely to have specialist visits and radiology tests than patients of primary care providers who did not use EHRs.
| S-EPMC4377559 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The US Federal Government is investing up to $29 billion in incentives for meaningful use of electronic health records (EHRs). However, the effect of EHRs on ambulatory quality is unclear, with several large studies finding no effect.To determine the effect of EHRs on ambulatory quality in a community-based setting.Cross-sectional study, using data from 2008.Ambulatory practices in the Hudson Valley of New York, with a median practice size of four physicians.We included all general internists, pediatricians and family medicine physicians who: were members of the Taconic Independent Practice Association, had patients in a data set of claims aggregated across five health plans, and had at least 30 patients per measure for at least one of nine quality measures selected by the health plans.Adoption of an EHR.We compared physicians using EHRs to physicians using paper on performance for each of the nine quality measures, using t-tests. We also created a composite quality score by standardizing performance against a national benchmark and averaging standardized performance across measures. We used generalized estimation equations, adjusting for nine physician characteristics.We included 466 physicians and 74,618 unique patients. Of the physicians, 204 (44 %) had adopted EHRs and 262 (56 %) were using paper. Electronic health record use was associated with significantly higher quality of care for four of the measures: hemoglobin A1c testing in diabetes, breast cancer screening, chlamydia screening, and colorectal cancer screening. Effect sizes ranged from 3 to 13 percentage points per measure. When all nine measures were combined into a composite, EHR use was associated with higher quality of care (sd 0.4, p?=?0.008).This is one of the first studies to find a positive association between EHRs and ambulatory quality in a community-based setting.
| S-EPMC3599037 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Physicians can receive federal payments for meaningful use of complete certified electronic health records (EHRs). Evidence is limited on how EHR use affects clinical care and outcomes.To examine the association between use of a commercially available certified EHR and clinical care processes and disease control in patients with diabetes.Quasi-experimental design with outpatient EHR implementation sequentially across 17 medical centers. Multivariate analyses adjusted for patient characteristics, medical center, time trends, and facility-level clustering.Kaiser Permanente Northern California, an integrated delivery system.169 711 patients with diabetes mellitus.Use of a commercially available certified EHR.Drug treatment intensification and hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) testing and values.Use of an EHR was associated with statistically significant improvements in treatment intensification after HbA(1c) values of 9% or greater (odds ratio, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.05 to 1.15]) or LDL-C values of 2.6 to 3.3 mmol/L (100 to 129 mg/dL) (odds ratio, 1.06 [CI, 1.00 to 1.12]); increases in 1-year retesting for HbA(1c) and LDL-C levels among all patients, with the most dramatic change among patients with the worst disease control (HbA(1c) levels ?9% or LDL-C levels ?3.4 mmol/L [?130 mg/dL]); and decreased 90-day retesting among patients with HbA(1c) levels less than 7% or LDL-C levels less than 2.6 mmol/L (<100 mg/dL). The EHR was also associated with statistically significant reductions in HbA(1c) and LDL-C levels, with the largest reductions among patients with the worst control (0.06-mmol/L [2.19-mg/dL] reduction among patients with baseline LDL-C levels ?3.4 mmol/L [?130 mg/dL]; P < 0.001).The EHR was implemented in a setting with strong baseline performance on cardiovascular care quality measures.Use of a commercially available certified EHR was associated with improved drug treatment intensification, monitoring, and physiologic control among patients with diabetes, with greater improvements among patients with worse control and less testing in patients already meeting guideline-recommended glycemic and lipid targets.National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
| S-EPMC3603566 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrevention of diabetes and coronary heart disease (CHD) is possible but identification of at-risk patients for targeting interventions is a challenge in primary care.MethodsWe analyzed electronic health record (EHR) data for 122,715 patients from 12 primary care practices. We defined patients with risk factor clustering using metabolic syndrome (MetS) characteristics defined by NCEP-ATPIII criteria; if missing, we used surrogate characteristics, and validated this approach by directly measuring risk factors in a subset of 154 patients. For subjects with at least 3 of 5 MetS criteria measured at baseline (2003-2004), we defined 3 categories: No MetS (0 criteria); At-risk-for MetS (1-2 criteria); and MetS (>or= 3 criteria). We examined new diabetes and CHD incidence, and resource utilization over the subsequent 3-year period (2005-2007) using age-sex-adjusted regression models to compare outcomes by MetS category.ResultsAfter excluding patients with diabetes/CHD at baseline, 78,293 patients were eligible for analysis. EHR-defined MetS had 73% sensitivity and 91% specificity for directly measured MetS. Diabetes incidence was 1.4% in No MetS; 4.0% in At-risk-for MetS; and 11.0% in MetS (p < 0.0001 for trend; adjusted OR MetS vs No MetS = 6.86 [6.06-7.76]); CHD incidence was 3.2%, 5.3%, and 6.4% respectively (p < 0.0001 for trend; adjusted OR = 1.42 [1.25-1.62]). Costs and resource utilization increased across categories (p < 0.0001 for trends). Results were similar analyzing individuals with all five criteria not missing, or defining MetS as >or= 2 criteria present.ConclusionRisk factor clustering in EHR data identifies primary care patients at increased risk for new diabetes, CHD and higher resource utilization.
| S-EPMC2753330 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAs the availability of interoperable electronic health records (iEHRs) or health information exchanges (HIEs) continues to increase, there is greater need and opportunity to assess the current evidence base on what works and what does not regarding the adoption, use, and impact of iEHRs.ObjectiveThe purpose of this project is to assess the international evidence base on the adoption, use, and impact of iEHRs.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review, searching multiple databases-MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)-with supplemental searches conducted in Google Scholar and grey literature sources (ie, Google, Grey Literature Report, and OpenGrey). All searches were conducted in January and February 2017. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were published in English, were published from 2006 to 2017, and were either an original research study or a literature review. In order to be included, articles needed to focus on iEHRs and HIEs across multiple health care settings, as well as on the impact and effectiveness of iEHR adoption and use.ResultsWe included 130 articles in the synthesis (113 primary studies, 86.9%; 17 reviews, 13.1%), with the majority focused on the United States (88/130, 67.7%). The primary studies focused on a wide range of health care settings; the three most prevalent settings studied included acute care (59/113, 52.2%), primary care (44/113, 38.9%), and emergency departments (34/113, 30.1%). We identified 29 distinct measurement items in the 113 primary studies that were linked to 522 specific measurement outcomes. Productivity and quality were the two evaluation dimensions that received the most attention, accounting for 14 of 29 (48%) measurement items and 306 of 522 (58.6%) measurement outcomes identified. Overall, the majority of the 522 measurement outcomes were positive (298/522, 57.1%). We also identified 17 reviews on iEHR use and impact, 6 (35%) that focused on barriers and facilitators to adoption and implementation and 11 (65%) that focused on benefits and impacts, with the more recent reviews finding little generalizable evidence of benefit and impact.ConclusionsThis review captures the status of an evolving and active field focused on the use and impact of iEHRs. While the overall findings suggest many positive impacts, the quality of the primary studies were not evaluated systematically. When broken down by specific measurement item, the results directed attention both to measurement outcomes that were consistently positive and others that were mostly negative or equivocal.
| S-EPMC6592487 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe identified the methods used and determined the roles of electronic health records (EHRs) in detecting and assessing adverse drug events (ADEs) in the ambulatory setting.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature review by searching PubMed and Google Scholar for studies on ADEs detected in the ambulatory setting involving any EHR use published before June 2017. We extracted study characteristics from included studies related to ADE detection methods for analysis.ResultsWe identified 30 studies that evaluated ADEs in an ambulatory setting with an EHR. In 27 studies, EHRs were used only as the data source for ADE identification. In two studies, the EHR was used as both a data source and to deliver decision support to providers during order entry. In one study, the EHR was a source of data and generated patient safety reports that researchers used in the process of identifying ADEs. Methods of identification included manual chart review by trained nurses, pharmacists, and/or physicians; prescription review; computer monitors; electronic triggers; International Classification of Diseases codes; natural language processing of clinical notes; and patient phone calls and surveys. Seven studies provided examples of search phrases, laboratory values, and rules used to identify ADEs.ConclusionThe majority of studies examined used EHRs as sources of data for ADE detection. This retrospective approach is appropriate to measure incidence rates of ADEs but not adequate to detect preventable ADEs before patient harm occurs. New methods involving computer monitors and electronic triggers will enable researchers to catch preventable ADEs and take corrective action.
| S-EPMC6382497 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe amount of time that health care clinicians (physicians and nurses) spend interacting with the electronic health record is not well understood.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the time that health care providers spend interacting with electronic health records (EHR).MethodsData are retrieved from Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, (Ovid) Embase, CINAHL, and SCOPUS.Study eligibility criteriaPeer-reviewed studies that describe the use of EHR and include measurement of time either in hours, minutes, or in the percentage of a clinician's workday. Papers were written in English and published between 1990 and 2021.ParticipantsAll physicians and nurses involved in inpatient and outpatient settings.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsA narrative synthesis of the results, providing summaries of interaction time with EHR. The studies were rated according to Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs.ResultsOut of 5,133 de-duplicated references identified through database searching, 18 met inclusion criteria. Most were time-motion studies (50%) that followed by logged-based analysis (44%). Most were conducted in the United States (94%) and examined a clinician workflow in the inpatient settings (83%). The average time was nearly 37% of time of their workday by physicians in both inpatient and outpatient settings and 22% of the workday by nurses in inpatient settings. The studies showed methodological heterogeneity.ConclusionThis systematic review evaluates the time that health care providers spend interacting with EHR. Interaction time with EHR varies depending on clinicians' roles and clinical settings, computer systems, and users' experience. The average time spent by physicians on EHR exceeded one-third of their workday. The finding is a possible indicator that the EHR has room for usability, functionality improvement, and workflow optimization.
| S-EPMC8387128 | biostudies-literature