Next
Back to Top
Prev
arrow19 Comments
  1. Sherry Reynolds @cascadia
    Sep 02 - 12:12 pm

    What is especially interesting is that even though patients who’s providers had an EHR received the standard of care 35% of the time more often the outcomes didn’t differ.. This shows how critically important it is to partner with patients outside of their providers office to bring about actual change in outcomes.

  2. william hyman
    Sep 02 - 8:18 pm

    It is a leap to say that the EHR was the cause of the better care as distinguished from the practices simply better (perhaps) as evidenced in part by their adoption of the EHR.

  3. Donald W. Simborg, MD
    Sep 03 - 11:39 am

    It is interesting how prominently Dr. Mostashari touts this study’s conclusions compared to the many studies with negative implications for EHRs. It is the same uncritical bias that may be present in the study itself. Although the results of this study suggest the hypothesis that EHRs lead to better quality care, it certainly does not prove that point. As with all uncontrolled retrospective analytical studies, the results here could very well be unrelated to the independent variable being studied. The result may simply be related to the fact that other variables which lead to good quality care may also have resulted in a practice choosing to implement an EHR.

  4. Lawrence Gordon, MD
    Sep 04 - 11:20 am

    The Cebul article provides solid support for the benefits to quality of care when using EHR. Both academic studies and reporting initiatives are hampered by inconsistently applied standard for patient inclusion in denominator populations. The diabetic patient population is not consistently defined not applied in Clinical Quality Measures submitted to CMS, P4P or clinical study designs. Because of this, we are not able to replicate or compare studies. Similarly performance data is less meaningful between sites and between information systems that use different standards and therefore more prone to “gaming” to change the results. The Cebul study is similarly limited in not providing a clear and replicable definition of what specifically defines the population of diabetic patients for inclusion in the study. Is it the provider labeling a patient as a diabetic, a single ICD-9 diagnosis on a claim or EHR note, elevated fasting blood glucose lab value(s), the treatment of the patient with insulin or an oral anti-diabetic medication, or some combination of the above? Whatever the inclusion metric, it should not have influenced the outcome if consistently applied to the EHR and paper-based patient population. Data that is extremely difficult and time-consuming for paper-based records is trivial to obtain from electronic health records. The results of EHR studies will be more MEANINGFUL when we have consistently applied national standards for inclusion in the denominator population. ONC should take the lead to promote consistent patient population standards.

  5. Scot Silverstein, MD
    Sep 08 - 11:22 am

    This article is fine; its findings are well known to me as former CMIO at the largest hospital in Mr. Biden’s home state. We had similar results in a pilot study using EMR data there – circa 1997. When health IT is done well, it can perform well.

    The problem is, there is massive, perhaps wicked complexity behind those simple two words “done well.”

    I am concerned about 2 other issues:

    1. The methodological limitations noted in the study may make the P.R. the article is getting a bit excessive.

    2. As in “Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method” by Greenhalgh, Potts, Wong, Bark and Swinglehurst at University College London appeared in the Dec. 2009 Milbank Quarterly:

    “… This review has also identified some areas where more research does not appear to be needed… [including] simplified experimental studies based on functionalist and determinist assumptions of the general format “what is the impact of technology X on outcome Y?” or variations thereof … the circumstances in which they add value are more limited than is often assumed.”

    It seems this study is of that type.

    Greenhalgh et al. also wrote:

    “… as a cross-cutting theme in all the above areas, the realpolitik of EPR projects within and between organizations and interest groups should be more explicitly explored … Orlikowski and Yates have called for more research on the “messy, dynamic, contested, contingent, negotiated, improvised, heterogeneous, and multi-level character of ICTs [information & communications technologies - ed.] in organizations. We suggest that sponsors and publishers eschew sanitized accounts of successful projects and instead invite studies of the EPR in organizations that “tell it like it is” – perhaps using the critical fiction technique to ensure anonymity.”

    There’s no trace of that in the new NEJM article. Where health IT is concerned, that’s where the money is (no pun intended) in learning how to “do health IT well.”

  6. John Lynn
    Sep 08 - 2:14 pm

    I think we have to be careful to draw such wide ranging conclusions from a very focused study. Plus, I’m not sure that all the benefits found in the study were really attributable to the EHR software as opposed to other factors.

    It’s nice to see research talk about the benefits of EHR, but let’s not over-exaggerate the actual conclusions of the study.

  7. Bobby Lee
    Sep 16 - 12:27 pm

    My main question is whether the compliance to standard protocol is the real driver to outcomes difference rather than whether was EHR or not.

    EHR –> helps with getting on standard protocol –> better outcome, NOT
    EHR = better outcome.

    I would of like to see stats on two groups; both using EHR, but compliancy to the protocol being the variance to see how the outcomes measure up.

  8. Janeen Smith, MSN, RN-BC
    Sep 22 - 8:21 pm

    Article seemed to lead to more questions than answers. WHY is EHR better? Is it due to the built-in checklists to jog the healthcare provider’s memory? Is it because the checklist will not be content till a response is provided? Does it teach the provider how to assess/diagnose/treat more effectively? As a nurse educator I would love to know what is so magical about data being provided electronically. Isn’t it still dependent upon input which is dependent upon critical thinking?

  9. Monika Bell
    Oct 02 - 2:47 pm

    It’s nice to see some hard numbers supporting use of EHR, not that they should be needed. Working with paper records is a nightmare – you can easily spend 75% of your day looking for records or waiting for paper reports to be filed. Half the time, hand-written notes can’t be deciphered, leaving much room for error and there are no good ways of gathering data on treatment outcomes and physician performance from paper records. Anyone with some common sense can see how having a patient’s chart at your fingertips at any time contributes greatly to faster, better and safer service. In my experience, it’s been the technologically disadvantaged providers and staff who opposed EHR implementation for fear of change or fear of lacking necessary skills. There is also a myth that electronics make patient care less personal or caring. It’s up to providers and staff to use the technology and still add a personal touch. Healthcare is about people and using efficient tools helps us spend more hours caring for patients rather than looking for their records.

  10. Medical Records Scanning
    Mar 19 - 12:28 am

    It’s no surprise that making a doctor’s practice more productive with information technology equates to better patient care. I think there may be a learning curve and some resistance to change for some, but I have to believe most doctors are achieving similar results.

  11. Symptoms of diabetes
    Jun 18 - 10:03 am

    Good to know! Thank you!

Leave a Reply

*

Mobile Theme