Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 405–410

Electronic Result Viewing and Quality of Care in Small Group Practices

  • Lisa M. Kern
  • Yolanda Barrón
  • A. John BlairIII
  • Jerry Salkowe
  • Deborah Chambers
  • Mark A. Callahan
  • Rainu Kaushal
Original Article



There is a paucity of data on the effectiveness of commercially available electronic systems for improving health care in office practices, where the majority of health care is delivered. In particular, the effect of electronic laboratory result viewing on quality of care, including preventive care, chronic disease management, and patient satisfaction, is unclear.


To determine whether electronic laboratory result viewing is associated with higher ambulatory care quality.


We conducted a cross-sectional study of primary care physicians (PCPs) in the Taconic IPA in New York, all of whom have the opportunity to use a free-standing electronic portal for laboratory result viewing. We analyzed 15 quality measures, reflecting preventive care, chronic disease management, and patient satisfaction, which were collected in 2005. Using generalized estimating equations, we determined associations between portal usage and quality, adjusting for adoption of electronic health records and 10 other physician characteristics, including case mix.

Main Results

One-third of physicians (54/168, 32%) used the portal at least once over a 6-month period. Use of the portal was associated with higher quality overall (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.003, 1.57). In stratified analyses, portal usage was associated with higher quality on those performance measures expected to be impacted by result viewing (adjusted OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.00, 1.81; p = 0.05), but not associated with quality for measures not expected to be impacted by result viewing (adjusted OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.72, 1.48; p = 0.85).


Electronic laboratory result viewing was independently associated with higher ambulatory care quality. Longitudinal studies are needed to confirm this association.


health information technology health information exchange quality of health care laboratory results 


  1. 1.
    American Medical Association. Physicians in the United States and Possessions by selected characteristics. Available at: Accessibility verified October 12, 2007.
  2. 2.
    Jha AK, Ferris TG, Donelan K, et al. How common are electronic health records in the United States? A summary of the evidence. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25(6):w496–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Poon EG, Gandhi TK, Sequist TD, Murff HJ, Karson AS, Bates DW. “I wish I had seen this test result earlier!”: dissatisfaction with test result management systems in primary care. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(20):2223–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blumenthal D, Glaser JP. Information technology comes to medicine. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(24):2527–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Halamka JD. Health information technology: shall we wait for the evidence? Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(10):775–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. AHRQ National Resource Center for Health Information Technology. Available at: Accessibility verified October 11, 2007.
  8. 8.
    Foundation of Research and Education of American Health Information Management Association. State level health information exchange initiative development workbook: a guide to key issues, options and strategies. Chicago; 2006. Available at: Accessibility verified October 12, 2007.
  9. 9.
    Avalere Health LLC. Evolution of state health information exchange: a study of vision, strategy and progress (AHRQ publication No. 06-0057). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2006.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    New York State Department of Health. Health Information Technology Grants - HEAL NY Phase 1. Available at: Accessibility verified October 12, 2007.
  11. 11.
    Simon SR, Kaushal R, Cleary PD, et al. Correlates of electronic health record adoption in office practices: a statewide survey. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14(1):110–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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(10):742–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bates DW, Kuperman GJ, Rittenberg E, et al. A randomized trial of a computer-based intervention to reduce utilization of redundant laboratory tests. Am J Med. 1999;106(2):144–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kuperman GJ, Teich JM, Tanasijevic MJ, et al. Improving response to critical laboratory results with automation: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999;6(6):512–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stair TO. Reduction of redundant laboratory orders by access to computerized patient records. J Emerg Med. 1998;16(6):895–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tierney WM, McDonald CJ, Martin DK, Rogers MP. Computerized display of past test results: effect on outpatient testing. Ann Intern Med. 1987;107(4):569–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Garr DR, Ornstein SM, Jenkins RG, Zemp LD. The effect of routine use of computer-generated preventive reminders in a clinical practice. Am J Prev Med. 1993;9(1):55–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Litzelman DK, Dittus RS, Miller ME, Tierney WM. Requiring physicians to respond to computerized reminders improves their compliance with preventive care protocols. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8(6):311–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McDonald CJ, Hui SL, Smith DM, et al. Reminders to physicians from an introspective computer medical record: a two-year randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 1984;100(1):130–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McDonald CJ, Hui SL, Tierney WM. Effects of computer reminders for influenza vaccination on morbidity during influenza epidemics. MD Comput. 1992;9(5):304–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ornstein SM, Garr DR, Jenkins RG, Musham C, Hamadeh G, Lancaster C. Implementation and evaluation of a computer-based preventive services system. Fam Med. 1995;27:260–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tierney WM, Hui SL, McDonald CJ. Delayed feedback of physician performance versus immediate reminders to perform preventive care: effects on physician compliance. Med Care. 1986;24(8):659–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Demakis JG, Beauchamp C, Cull WL, Denwood R, Eisen SA, Lofgren R, et al. Improving residents' compliance with standards of ambulatory care: results from the VA Cooperative Study on Computerized Reminders. JAMA. 2000;284(11):1411–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rollman BL, Hanusa BH, Gilbert T, Lowe HJ, Kapoor WN, Schulberg HC. The electronic medical record: a randomized trial of its impact on primary care physicians' initial management of major depression. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(2):189–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rollman BL, Hanusa BH, Lowe HJ, Gilbert T, Kapoor WN, Schulberg HC. A randomized trial using computerized decision support to improve treatment of major depression in primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17(7):493–503.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rossi RA, Every NR. A computerized intervention to decrease the use of calcium channel blockers in hypertension. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12(11):672–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Safran C, Rind DM, Davis RB, et al. Guidelines for management of HIV infection with computer-based patient’s record. Lancet. 1995;346(8971):341–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Simon GE, VonKorff M, Rutter C, Wagner E. Randomised trial of monitoring, feedback, and management of care by telephone to improve treatment of depression in primary care. BMJ. 2000;320(7234):550–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    U.S. News & World Report. Best health plans 2006. Available at: Accessibility verified October 12, 2007.
  30. 30.
    DxCG. Available at: Accessibility verified October 12, 2007.
  31. 31.
    Ash AS, Ellis RP, Pope GC, et al. Using diagnoses to describe populations and predict costs. Health Care Financ Rev. 2000;21(3):7–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Berwick DM. Disseminating innovations in health care. JAMA. 2003;289(15):1969–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rogers EM. Innovativeness and adopter categories. In: Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003:267–99.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wiest FC, Ferris TG, Gokhale M. Preparedness of internal medicine and family practice residents for treating common conditions. JAMA. 2002;288(20):2609–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sharp LK, Bashook PG, Lipsky MS, Horowitz SD, Miller SH. Specialty board certification and clinical outcomes: the missing link. Acad Med. 2002;77(6):534–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(26):2635–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Saaddine JB, Cadwell B, Gregg EW, et al. Improvements in diabetes processes of care and intermediate outcomes: United States, 1988–2002. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(7):465–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Institute of Medicine. Key capabilities of an electronic health record system. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2003. Available at: Accessibility verified October 12, 2007

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa M. Kern
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Yolanda Barrón
    • 1
  • A. John BlairIII
    • 4
    • 5
  • Jerry Salkowe
    • 6
  • Deborah Chambers
    • 6
  • Mark A. Callahan
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Rainu Kaushal
    • 1
    • 3
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of Public HealthWeill Cornell Medical CollegeNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical CollegeNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.New York-Presbyterian HospitalNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Taconic IPAFishkillUSA
  5. 5.MedAlliesFishkillUSA
  6. 6.MVP Health CareSchenectadyUSA
  7. 7.Department of Pediatrics, Weill Cornell Medical CollegeNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations