Electronic Health Records and Ambulatory Quality of Care
- 2.7k Downloads
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.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
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.
KEY WORDSelectronic health records primary health care quality of health care
This work was supported by the Commonwealth Fund, the Taconic Independent Practice Association, and the New York State Department of Health (contract #C023699). The authors specifically thank A. John Blair III, MD, President of the Taconic IPA and CEO of MedAllies, and Susan Stuard, MBA, Executive Director of THINC. All authors have contributed sufficiently to be authors and have approved the final manuscript. The authors take full responsibility for the design and conduct of the study and controlled the decision to publish. The authors had full access to the data, and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. A full list of HITEC Investigators can be found at: www.hitecny.org/about-us/our-team/. This work was previously presented as a poster at the Annual Symposium of the American Medical Informatics Association on October 25, 2011.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they do not have conflicts of interest.
Role of the Funding Agencies
The funding sources had no role in the study’s design, conduct or reporting.
- 1.American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub L, No. 111-5, 123 Stat 115.Google Scholar
- 16.THINC: Taconic Health Information Network and Community. (Accessed August 31, 2012, at www.thincrhio.org.)
- 17.New York State Department of Health. Hudson Valley Region–Health Information Technology (HIT) Grants–HEAL NY Phase 1. 2007. (Accessed August 31, 2012, at www.health.state.ny.us/technology/awards/regions/hudson_valley.)
- 18.New York Governor’s Office. New York State provides $9.5 million for incentive program to promote high-quality, more affordable health care. 2007. (Accessed August 31, 2012, at www.nyqa.org/NYS-provides.pdf.)
- 20.Health Information Technology Evaluation Collaborative (HITEC). (Accessed August 31, 2012, at www.hitecny.org.)
- 21.Taconic IPA. (Accessed August 31, 2012, at www.taconicipa.com.)
- 22.MedAllies. (Accessed August 31, 2012, at www.medallies.com.)
- 23.DxCG Intelligence. (Accessed August 31, 2012, at www.veriskhealth.com/solutions/enterprise-analytics/dxcg-intelligence.)
- 25.Medicare Advantage–Rates and Statistics–Risk Adjustment. (Accessed August 31, 2012, at http://www.cms.gov/MedicareAdvtgSpecRateStats/06_Risk_adjustment.asp#TopOfPage.)
- 26.National Committee for Quality Assurance. HEDIS & Quality Measurement. (Accessed August 31, 2012, at http://www.ncqa.org/tabid/59/Default.aspx.)
- 27.Scholle SH, Roski J, Adams JL, et al. Benchmarking physician performance: reliability of individual and composite measures. Am J Manage Care. 2008;14:833–838.Google Scholar
- 28.Scholle SH, Roski J, Dunn DL, et al. Availability of data for measuring physician quality performance. Am J Manage Care. 2009;15:67–72.Google Scholar
- 29.National Committee for Quality Assurance. The state of health care quality: Reform, the quality agenda and resource use. 2010. (Accessed August 31, 2012, at http://www.ncqa.org/tabid/836/Default.aspx.)
- 30.Pawlson LG, Scholle SH, Powers A. Comparison of administrative-only versus administrative plus chart review data for reporting HEDIS hybrid measures. Am J Manage Care. 2007;13:553–558.Google Scholar
- 33.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Electronic Health Record Incentive Program; Final Rule. 75 Federal Register 44314 (2010) (42 CFR Parts 412, 413, 422 and 495).Google Scholar
- 36.Perlin JB, Kolodner RM, Roswell RH. The Veterans Health Administration: quality, value, accountability, and information as transforming strategies for patient-centered care. Am J Manage Care. 2004;10:828–836.Google Scholar
- 37.American Medical Association. Physician characteristics and distribution in the U.S., 2011 edition, Division of Survey and Data Resources, American Medical Association, 2011.Google Scholar
- 39.Institute of Medicine. Pediatric health and health care quality measures. 2010. (Accessed August 31, 2012, at http://www.iom.edu/Activities/Quality/PediatricQualityMeasures.aspx.)