Electronic Result Viewing and Quality of Care in Small Group Practices
- First Online:
- 102 Downloads
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.
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.
KEY WORDShealth information technology health information exchange quality of health care laboratory results
- 1.American Medical Association. Physicians in the United States and Possessions by selected characteristics. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/images/373/internettable.gif. Accessibility verified October 12, 2007.
- 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.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. AHRQ National Resource Center for Health Information Technology. Available at: http://www.healthit.ahrq.gov. Accessibility verified October 11, 2007.
- 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: http://www.staterhio.org. Accessibility verified October 12, 2007.
- 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.New York State Department of Health. Health Information Technology Grants - HEAL NY Phase 1. Available at: http://www.health.state.ny.us/technology/awards. Accessibility verified October 12, 2007.
- 29.U.S. News & World Report. Best health plans 2006. Available at: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/health/best-health-insurance/Commercial/dir_242.htm. Accessibility verified October 12, 2007.
- 30.DxCG. Available at: http://www.dxcg.com. Accessibility verified October 12, 2007.
- 33.Rogers EM. Innovativeness and adopter categories. In: Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003:267–99.Google Scholar
- 38.Institute of Medicine. Key capabilities of an electronic health record system. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2003. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10781. Accessibility verified October 12, 2007