Special Article
Electronic Health Records in Ambulatory Care — A National Survey of Physicians
N Engl J Med 2008; 359:50-60July 3, 2008
- Abstract
Background
Electronic health records have the potential to improve the delivery of health care services. However, in the United States, physicians have been slow to adopt such systems. This study assessed physicians' adoption of outpatient electronic health records, their satisfaction with such systems, the perceived effect of the systems on the quality of care, and the perceived barriers to adoption.
Methods
In late 2007 and early 2008, we conducted a national survey of 2758 physicians, which represented a response rate of 62%. Using a definition for electronic health records that was based on expert consensus, we determined the proportion of physicians who were using such records in an office setting and the relationship between adoption and the characteristics of individual physicians and their practices.
Results
Four percent of physicians reported having an extensive, fully functional electronic-records system, and 13% reported having a basic system. In multivariate analyses, primary care physicians and those practicing in large groups, in hospitals or medical centers, and in the western region of the United States were more likely to use electronic health records. Physicians reported positive effects of these systems on several dimensions of quality of care and high levels of satisfaction. Financial barriers were viewed as having the greatest effect on decisions about the adoption of electronic health records.
Conclusions
Physicians who use electronic health records believe such systems improve the quality of care and are generally satisfied with the systems. However, as of early 2008, electronic systems had been adopted by only a small minority of U.S. physicians, who may differ from later adopters of these systems.
Media in This Article
Figure 1
Rates of Positive Survey Responses on the Effect of Adoption of Electronic-Health-Records Systems.Table 1
Survey Items Defining the Use of Electronic Health Records.Article Activity
- Article
Health-information technology, such as sophisticated electronic health records, has the potential to improve health care.1-3 Nevertheless, electronic-records systems have been slow to become part of the practices of physicians in the United States.4,5 To date, there have been no definitive national studies that provide reliable estimates of the adoption of electronic health records by U.S. physicians. Recent estimates of such adoption by physicians range from 9 to 29%.4,5 These percentages were derived from studies that either had a small number of respondents or incompletely specified definitions of an electronic health record.5,6
To provide clearer estimates of the adoption of electronic-records systems by U.S. physicians, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology of the Department of Health and Human Services4 supported our project to develop and test measures of adoption and to deploy those measures in a representative national survey of U.S. physicians. The goal was both to gather accurate information on current levels of adoption and to provide survey items that could be used to generate similar data over time on the diffusion of electronic health records and on physicians' perceptions of the effect of such systems on their practices.
This report addresses the following questions: What proportion of physicians report that outpatient electronic health records are available to them in office practice? How satisfied are physicians who use such systems, and what effect, if any, do they believe these systems have on the quality of care they provide to their patients?
Methods
Survey Development
The survey was developed by the investigators, with guidance from a consensus panel of experts in the fields of survey research, health-information technology, and health care management and policy and from representatives of hospital and physician groups and organizations. The development of the survey was also informed by focus groups and interviews with physicians and chief information officers and by a systematic review of previous surveys that were focused on the adoption of electronic health records.4
The survey was approved by the institutional review board at Massachusetts General Hospital and by the federal Office of Management and Budget. The investigators drafted the manuscript and had complete independence in developing the survey, collecting and analyzing the data, and reporting the results.
Developing a Measure of Adoption
On the basis of advice from the expert panel, the investigators defined the key functions that constitute an outpatient electronic health record and asked respondents to describe the availability and use of those functions. The investigators began with the Institute of Medicine's framework that defines possible functions of an electronic health record.7 Using a modified Delphi process, the panel reached consensus on functions that should be present to qualify the system as a “fully functional” electronic health record.2 These functions generally fall into four domains: recording patients' clinical and demographic data, viewing and managing results of laboratory tests and imaging, managing order entry (including electronic prescriptions), and supporting clinical decisions (including warnings about drug interactions or contraindications). Physicians were asked whether their main practice site had a computerized system for each function (Table 1Table 1
Survey Items Defining the Use of Electronic Health Records.).Recognizing that relatively few physicians might have fully functional electronic health records and that less complete electronic records might nevertheless convey benefits for patients' care, the investigators defined a minimum set of functions that would merit the use of the term “electronic health record,” calling this a “basic” system (Table 1). The principal differences between a fully functional system and a basic system were the absence of certain order-entry capabilities and clinical-decision support in a basic system. The survey assessed physicians' access to various functions and whether the functions were used. However, since the overwhelming majority of physicians said they used most available functions, we primarily report findings on the availability of electronic health records in the office setting.
Survey Sample
We identified all U.S. physicians who provide direct patient care from the 2007 Physician Masterfile of the American Medical Association (AMA). We excluded all doctors of osteopathy, residents, physicians working in federally owned hospitals, those with no listed address, those who requested not to be contacted, and those who were retired. From the resulting list, we randomly selected 5000 physicians for inclusion in the sample.
Of these 5000 physicians, 516 were ineligible to participate in the survey because they were deceased, retired, out of the country, practicing in a specialty that was not included in the survey (i.e., radiology, anesthesiology, pathology, or psychiatry), had no known address, or were not providing care to patients. Of the 4484 eligible respondents, 2758 completed the survey, which yielded a response rate of 62%. A copy of the survey appears in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at www.nejm.org.
Survey Administration
RTI International administered the survey between September 2007 and March 2008. Physicians received an initial mailing that included a cover letter, the survey, a postage-paid return envelope, and a check for $20. Nonrespondents received reminders by mail and telephone. In January 2008, nonrespondents received another reminder and a $40 check to encourage participation.
Statistical Analysis
All statistical analyses were conducted by researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital. We compared the characteristics of respondents with those in the AMA Masterfile using two-tailed chi-square tests with the use of SAS software, version 9.0 (Table 2Table 2
Characteristics of Survey Respondents and Their Practices.).8 The respondents were more likely to be male than would be expected on the basis of national statistics. We adjusted for possible nonresponse bias as a result of this difference by creating a weight equal to the inverse of the response probability for men and women and used this weight in all the multivariate analyses.We examined the univariate and bivariate relationships in the data. On the basis of these analyses, we applied a cumulative logit model, using SUDAAN, version 9.0.1 (RTI International),9 to evaluate the association between the characteristics of physicians (sex, race and ethnic background, number of years in practice, and medical specialty) and their practices (practice size, practice setting, location, and region of the country) with the availability of electronic health records, which was treated as an ordinal variable. From this model, we obtained percentages10 and the accompanying standard errors of availability of electronic health records, with adjustment for the characteristics mentioned above.
Second, we performed logistic-regression analysis to assess whether the availability of electronic health records was associated with a report by respondents that an electronic-records system had a positive effect on certain aspects of their practice. The third analysis assessed whether physicians were satisfied with their electronic records. The fourth analysis examined the barriers to and facilitators of adoption. These analyses were restricted to physicians who reported having access to a basic system or a fully functional system; the analyses were adjusted for significant characteristics of physicians and their practices.
Results
Survey Respondents
Four percent of respondents reported having a fully functional electronic-records system, and 13% reported having a basic system. Of the small number of respondents who had a fully functional system, 71% reported that their system was integrated with the electronic system at the hospital where they admit patients, as compared with only 56% of respondents with a basic system (P=0.006).
Among the 83% of respondents who did not have electronic health records, 16% reported that their practice had purchased but not yet implemented such a system at the time of the survey. An additional 26% of respondents said that their practice intended to purchase an electronic-records system within the next 2 years.
Factors Associated with Availability
In multivariate analyses, having an electronic-records system was significantly associated with several characteristics of both individual physicians and their practices (Table 3Table 3
Rates of Adoption of Electronic Health Records by Physicians, with Adjustment for the Characteristics of the Physicians and Their Practices.). Electronic-records systems were more prevalent among physicians who were younger, worked in large or primary care practices, worked in hospitals or medical centers, and lived in the western region of the United States. Rates of adoption did not differ significantly among providers serving a high proportion of minority patients or patients who were uninsured or receiving Medicaid, as compared with other physicians (data not shown).Frequency of Use
Among the 4% of doctors with a fully functional electronic-records system, 97% reported using all the functions at least some of the time. Among the 13% of doctors with a basic system, more than 99% reported using all the functions at least some of the time.
Other Capabilities
Physicians with electronic health records were asked to report the extent to which these systems allowed patients to do each of the following online: view and make changes to their medical records and request prescription refills, appointments, and referrals. Physicians with fully functional electronic-records systems were significantly more likely than those with basic systems to have each of these functions (Table 4Table 4
Rates of Response Regarding Functions of Electronic Health Records and Their Effects.). Enabling patients to request a prescription refill online was a prevalent function for both basic systems and fully functional systems.Effect on Practices
Figure 1Figure 1
Rates of Positive Survey Responses on the Effect of Adoption of Electronic-Health-Records Systems. shows the percentages of respondents reporting positive effects of electronic health records on various aspects of their practices. Among the small number of respondents who had fully functional electronic-records systems, most physicians reported the positive effects of the system on the quality of clinical decisions (82%), communication with other providers (92%) and patients (72%), prescription refills (95%), timely access to medical records (97%), and avoidance of medication errors (86%). Furthermore, 82 to 85% reported a positive effect on the delivery of long-term and preventive care that meets guidelines. For physicians with basic systems, the magnitudes of effects were generally smaller. Results were adjusted for the characteristics of physicians and their practices.Respondents also reported on whether the use of electronic health records had assisted in the care of patients in several specific ways (Table 4). Most of those with fully functional systems reported averting a known drug allergic reaction (80%) or a potentially dangerous drug interaction (71%), being alerted to a critical laboratory value (90%), ordering a critical laboratory test (68%), and providing preventive care (69%). Physicians with basic electronic-records systems reported having the same effects but less commonly than did those with fully functional systems.
Physician Satisfaction
A large majority of physicians reported being satisfied with their electronic-records systems overall (93% for fully functional systems and 88% for basic systems, P=0.20) and with the ease of use of the system when providing care to patients (88% and 81%, respectively; P=0.11). Physicians with fully functional electronic-records systems were significantly more likely to be satisfied with the reliability of their system than were those with basic systems (90% and 79%, respectively; P=0.01). Here again, results were adjusted for the characteristics of physicians and their practices.
Barriers to Adoption
Among physicians who did not have access to an electronic-records system, the most commonly cited barriers to adoption were capital costs (66%), not finding a system that met their needs (54%), uncertainty about their return on the investment (50%), and concern that a system would become obsolete (44%) (Table 5Table 5
Barriers to the Adoption of Electronic Health Records.). Physicians with electronic health records tended to highlight the same barriers but less frequently than did nonadopters.Facilitators of Adoption
Among all respondents, the factors that were most frequently cited as facilitators of adoption were financial incentives for the purchase (55% among physicians with no electronic health records and 46% among those with electronic health records, P=0.001) and payment for use of an electronic-records system (57% and 52%, respectively; P=0.04). About 40% of respondents with and without an electronic-records system also reported that protecting physicians from personal liability for record tampering by external parties could be a major facilitator of adoption.
Discussion
On the basis of a large, representative sample of U.S. physicians and clearly specified, replicable definitions of electronic-records systems that were developed by a panel of experts, our study indicates that electronic health records are available in the office setting to only a small minority (17%) of U.S. physicians at present. Only 4% of physicians have what the expert panel considered a fully functional electronic-records system.
Previous studies have shown that the practice setting (and especially the size of the group) had a significant influence on the adoption of electronic health records in the United States, findings that our results confirm.5,6,11 After adjustment for other characteristics of physicians and their practices, we found that physicians who practice in groups of more than 50 were three times as likely to have a basic electronic-records system and more than four times as likely to have a fully functional electronic-records system as were physicians in groups of 3 or fewer. However, even in large groups, only a small minority (17%) had a fully functional system, and 49% had no electronic-records system at all.
Subjective reports by respondents about the influence of electronic health records on the quality of their practice and clinical decisions and about their satisfaction with the system are encouraging. The proportion of respondents reporting positive effects was generally larger for fully functional systems than for basic systems, a finding that is consistent with the hypothesis that more capable systems offer greater benefits. However, the possibility of bias among respondents, especially greater receptivity to and facility with electronic health records among early adopters, cannot be excluded. The quality and cost effects of electronic health records need to be confirmed by direct studies of clinical outcomes. Considerable controversy continues about the overall effect of electronic health records, and further research needs to clarify the effects of this technology on our health care system.1
It is also encouraging that a large majority of respondents reported overall satisfaction with their electronic-records system. However, approximately 20% of physicians with basic systems expressed reservations about the ease of use and reliability of their systems. Improving the usability of electronic health records may be critical to the continued successful diffusion of the technology.
Even though we used definitions and methods that differed from those used in previous studies of electronic-records systems, it is possible, within limits, to compare our findings with those of other studies. For example, in 2006, the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) showed that 9.3% of respondents had adopted systems similar to (though not exactly the same as) our current definition of a basic electronic record.2 Applying the NAMCS definition, we found that 14% of our respondents reported having an electronic-records system. This finding suggests that the number of physicians with some type of electronic-records system has increased in the past year. The function-based approach that we used to measure the availability and use of electronic health records will enable future researchers to gauge progress in the adoption of such systems on the basis of alternative definitions, including that used by NAMCS.
Our study and others1-3 serve to underscore both the potential benefits of electronic health records and the low current availability of this technology. The combination of these findings suggests that the U.S. health care system faces major challenges in taking full advantage of electronic health records to realize its health care goals. President Bush has proposed that electronic health records should be widespread in the U.S. health care system by 2014, and both of the likely presidential candidates have prominently featured the diffusion of electronic health records in their health care proposals.12-14 Indeed, recent Medicare cost-containment proposals included incentives for the adoption of health-information technology by physicians as a means of spurring greater use.15 Our data suggest that such incentives could be important facilitators of adoption. However, the cost of achieving widespread adoption of electronic health records in the United States could be high, probably in the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars,1,16-19 and whether any future federal administration will find the necessary resources is uncertain.
In their efforts to spur adoption of electronic health records, policymakers may benefit from studying the experience of other Western countries, which seem to have been much more successful (despite significantly lower overall national health expenditures) at encouraging the adoption of health-information technology by physicians. Data from 10 Western industrialized nations suggest that a large majority (often more than 90%) of primary care physicians currently use computers in their office practices.20 These countries seem to have achieved these results using a variety of interventions — public and private, economic and noneconomic — that may offer guidance to future actions in the United States.20
Certain limitations of our study should be taken into account. Like all surveys, ours was subject to potential problems of response bias. It is possible that physicians who responded to our survey had a greater interest than did nonresponders in the subject of electronic health records. Although we adjusted for potential nonresponse bias, our data may overestimate actual rates of adoption of electronic health records. Another reason to be cautious about the reports is that the estimates of the effect of these systems on quality of care and satisfaction are based on a small number of respondents with a large margin of error, especially for the fully functional electronic-records systems. As already noted, by virtue of having electronic health records at this stage in their diffusion, the respondents with these systems are probably different from respondents without them. This limitation, coupled with the small number of adopters in our study, suggests that any extrapolation of the benefits and satisfaction with electronic health records reported by respondents should be done with caution.
In discussions about health-information technology, our study informs the debate by providing benchmark information about the levels of adoption of electronic health records by U.S. physicians as of late 2007 and early 2008. Further studies that use clear, similar definitions of electronic health records and representative samples of physicians will be necessary to inform the development of policies with regard to electronic health records in our health care system.
Supported by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Drs. Rao, Donelan, and Blumenthal report receiving grant support from GE Corporate Healthcare; and Dr. Blumenthal, serving as an adviser to the presidential campaign of Barack Obama. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
This article (10.1056/NEJMsa0802005) was published at www.nejm.org on June 18, 2008.
We thank our expert consensus panel for their assistance in conducting this research and Paola Miralles of the Institute for Health Policy for assistance in the preparation of the manuscript.
Source Information
From the Institute for Health Policy (C.M.D., E.G.C., S.R.R., K.D., D.E.L., A.E.S., D.B.) and the Massachusetts General Physicians Organization (T.G.F.), Massachusetts General Hospital; and Harvard Medical School (A.J.) — both in Boston; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York (R.K.); and the Department of Health Policy, George Washington University, Washington, DC (S.R.).
Address reprint requests to Dr. DesRoches at the Institute for Health Policy, Massachusetts General Hospital, Suite 900, 50 Staniford St., Boston, MA 02114, or at cdesroches@partners.org.
- References
References
1
Shekelle PG ,Morton SC ,Keeler EB . Costs and benefits of health information technology. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2006;132:1-71
Medline2
Blumenthal D, DesRoches C, Donelan K, et al. Health information technology in the United States: the information base for progress. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2006.
3
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;144:742-752
Web of Science | Medline4
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:w496-w507
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline5
Hing ES, Burt CW, Woodwell DA. Electronic medical record use by office-based physicians and their practices: United States, 2006. Advanced data from vital and health statistics (DHHS publication no. (PHS) 2008-1250). No. 393. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, October 26, 2007:1-7.
6
Schoen C ,Osborn R ,Huynh PT ,Doty M ,Peugh J ,Zapert K . On the front lines of care: primary care doctors' office systems, experiences, and views in seven countries. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006;25:w555-w571
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline7
ISO/TC. Electronic health record definition, scope, and context (2nd draft). ISO/TC 215 technical report. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, August 2003.
8
SAS OnlineDoc 9.1.3. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, 2002-2005. (Accessed June 10, 2008, at http://support.sas.com/onlinedoc/913/docMainpage.jsp.)
9
SUDAAN language manual, release 9.0. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute, 2004.
10
Korn EL, Graubard BI. Analysis of health surveys. New York: John Wiley, 1999.
11
Bates DW . Physicians and ambulatory electronic health records. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005;24:1180-1189
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline12
Presidential candidate Barack Obama's Web site. (Accessed June 10, 2008, at http://www.barackobama.com/index.php.)
13
Presidential candidate John McCain's Web site. (Accessed June 10, 2008, at http://www.johnmccain.com.)
14
The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2008 Presidential candidate health care proposals: side-by-side summary. (Accessed June 10, 2008, at http://www.health08.org/sidebyside_results.cfm?c=5&c=11&c=16.)
15
Armstrong D. Bush administration sends medicare legislation to Congress. Congressional Quarterly. February 15, 2008.
16
Kaushal R ,Jha AK ,Franz C , et al. Return on investment for a computerized physician order entry system. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006;13:261-266
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline17
Miller RH ,West C ,Brown TM ,Sim I ,Ganchoff C . The value of electronic health records in solo or small group practices. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005;24:1127-1137
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline18
Miller RH ,West CE . The value of electronic health records in community health centers: policy implications. Health Aff (Millwood) 2007;26:206-214
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline19
Hillestad R ,Bigelow J ,Bower A , et al. Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005;24:1103-1117
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline20
Protti D . A comparison of information technology in general practice in ten countries. Healthc Q 2007;10:107-116
Medline
- Citing Articles (152)
Citing Articles
1
Jordan Mitchell, Kevin J. Bennett, Janice Probst. (2013) Organizational Factors Associated with Health Information Technology Adoption and Utilization Among Home Health / Hospice Agencies. International Journal of Healthcare Information Systems and Informatics 6:3, 46-59
CrossRef2
Sherrie Drye Cannoy. (2013) An Interpretive Study of Critical Issues in Electronic Health Information Exchange. International Journal of Dependable and Trustworthy Information Systems 2:1, 1-17
CrossRef3
Stacy Bourgeois, Ulku Yaylacicegi. (2012) Electronic Health Records. International Journal of Healthcare Information Systems and Informatics 5:3, 1-13
CrossRef4
Oded Nov, William Schecter. (2012) Dispositional resistance to change and hospital physicians' use of electronic medical records: A multidimensional perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technologyn/a-n/a
CrossRef5
Jeffrey S. Harman, Kathryn M. Rost, Christopher A. Harle, Robert L. Cook. (2012) Electronic Medical Record Availability and Primary Care Depression Treatment. Journal of General Internal Medicine
CrossRef6
Melanie T. Tucker, John C. Higginbotham, Jason M. Parton. (2012) EMR Use Among Rural and Urban Alabama Family Medicine Physicians. Southern Medical Journal 105:2, 72-77
CrossRef7
Wendy Currie. (2012) TEMPEST: An integrative model for health technology assessment. Health Policy and Technology
CrossRef8
Mercedes Alfaro, Julio Bonis, Rafael Bravo, Enrique Fluiters, Sergio Minué. (2012) Nuevas tecnologías en atención primaria: personas, máquinas, historias y redes. Informe SESPAS 2012. Gaceta Sanitaria
CrossRef9
Ranjit Singh, Michael I. Lichter, Andrew Danzo, John Taylor, Thomas Rosenthal. (2012) The Adoption and Use of Health Information Technology in Rural Areas: Results of a National Survey. The Journal of Rural Health 28:1, 16-27
CrossRef10
Mary Fitzsimons, Charles Normand, Jarlath Varley, Norman Delanty. (2012) Evidence-based models of care for people with epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior 23:1, 1-6
CrossRef11
Spencer D. Dorn. (2012) Health Care Reform: 2012 Update. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America 22:1, 1-14
CrossRef12
Blumenthal, David, . (2011) Wiring the Health System — Origins and Provisions of a New Federal Program. New England Journal of Medicine 365:24, 2323-2329
Full Text13
S. L. Ting, S. K. Kwok, Albert H. C. Tsang, W. B. Lee, K. F. Yee. (2011) Experiences Sharing of Implementing Template-Based Electronic Medical Record System (TEMRS) in a Hong Kong Medical Organization. Journal of Medical Systems 35:6, 1605-1615
CrossRef14
Jonathan M. Birnberg, Melinda L. Drum, Elbert S. Huang, Lawrence P. Casalino, Sarah E. Lewis, Anusha M. Vable, Hui Tang, Michael T. Quinn, Deborah L. Burnet, Thomas Summerfelt, Marshall H. Chin. (2011) Development of a Safety Net Medical Home Scale for Clinics. Journal of General Internal Medicine 26:12, 1418-1425
CrossRef15
Richard J. Holden. (2011) What Stands in the Way of Technology-Mediated Patient Safety Improvements? A Study of Facilitators and Barriers to Physicians’ Use of Electronic Health Records. Journal of Patient Safety 7:4, 193-203
CrossRef16
(2011) Full issue in PDF / Numéro complet en form PDF. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association 32:3, 133-184
CrossRef17
Stefano Bonacina, Sara Marceglia, Francesco Pinciroli. (2011) Barriers Against Adoption of Electronic Health Record in Italy. Journal of Healthcare Engineering 2:4, 509-526
CrossRef18
Ralf Schiel, Alexander Kaps, Gerald Bieber. (2011) Electronic health technology for the assessment of physical activity and eating habits in children and adolescents with overweight and obesity IDA. Appetite
CrossRef19
Dukyong Yoon, Byung-Chul Chang, Seong Weon Kang, Hasuk Bae, Rae Woong Park. (2011) Adoption of electronic health records in Korean tertiary teaching and general hospitals. International Journal of Medical Informatics
CrossRef20
Alexandre Alcantara Holanda, Henrique Luis Carmo e Sá, Anya Pimentel Gomes Fernandes Vieira, Ana Maria Fontenelle Catrib. (2011) Use and Satisfaction with Electronic Health Record by Primary Care Physicians in a Health District in Brazil. Journal of Medical Systems
CrossRef21
Pierre-Géraud Claret, Mustapha Sebbanne, Xavier Bobbia, Jean-Marie Bonnec, Stéphane Pommet, Chawki Jebali, Jean-Emmanuel de La Coussaye. (2011) First medical contact and physicians' opinion after the implementation of an electronic record system. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine
CrossRef22
Erika L. Abramson, Sandra McGinnis, Alison Edwards, Dayna M. Maniccia, Jean Moore, Rainu Kaushal, . (2011) Electronic health record adoption and health information exchange among hospitals in New York State. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practiceno-no
CrossRef23
PAULINA S. SOCKOLOW, JONATHAN P. WEINER, KATHRYN H. BOWLES, HAROLD P. LEHMANN. (2011) A New Instrument for Measuring Clinician Satisfaction With Electronic Health Records. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing 29:10, 574-585
CrossRef24
Raj I. Narayani. (2011) Endoscopic reporting systems and integration with the electronic health record. Techniques in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 13:4, 234-238
CrossRef25
Justin G. Trogdon, Benjamin T. Allaire, Brent M. Egan, Daniel T. Lackland, Dory Masters. (2011) Training providers in hypertension guidelines: Cost-effectiveness evaluation of a continuing medical education program in South Carolina. American Heart Journal 162:4, 786-793.e1
CrossRef26
Cebul, Randall D., Love, Thomas E., Jain, Anil K., Hebert, Christopher J., . (2011) Electronic Health Records and Quality of Diabetes Care. New England Journal of Medicine 365:9, 825-833
Full Text27
Heather C. O’Donnell, Vaishali Patel, Lisa M. Kern, Yolanda Barrón, Paul Teixeira, Rina Dhopeshwarkar, Rainu Kaushal. (2011) Healthcare Consumers’ Attitudes Towards Physician and Personal Use of Health Information Exchange. Journal of General Internal Medicine 26:9, 1019-1026
CrossRef28
Elizabeth R. Pfoh, Erika Abramson, Stephanie Zandieh, Alison Edwards, Rainu Kaushal. (2011) Satisfaction after the transition between electronic health record systems at six ambulatory practices. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practiceno-no
CrossRef29
Catherine M. DesRoches, Paola Miralles, Peter Buerhaus, Robert Hess, Karen Donelan. (2011) Health Information Technology in the Workplace. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration 41:9, 357-364
CrossRef30
Aykut Uslu, Jürgen Stausberg. (2011) Value of the Electronic Medical Record for Hospital Care: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Healthcare Engineering 2:3, 271-284
CrossRef31
Karen Suchanek Hudmon, Robert L. Addleton, Frank M. Vitale, Bruce A. Christiansen, George C. Mejicano. (2011) Advancing public health through continuing education of health care professionals. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions 31:S1, S60-S66
CrossRef32
JOANNE G. SAMUELS, DAWN KRITTER. (2011) Pain Management Documentation. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing 29:9, 512-518
CrossRef33
Spencer D. Dorn. (2011) Gastroenterology in a New Era of Accountability: Part 2. Developing and Implementing Performance Measures. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 9:8, 660-664
CrossRef34
Michael F. Chiang, Michael V. Boland, Allen Brewer, K. David Epley, Mark B. Horton, Michele C. Lim, Colin A. McCannel, Sayjal J. Patel, David E. Silverstone, Linda Wedemeyer, Flora Lum. (2011) Special Requirements for Electronic Health Record Systems in Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 118:8, 1681-1687
CrossRef35
Paul A. Teixeira, Peter Gordon, Eli Camhi, Suzanne Bakken. (2011) HIV patients’ willingness to share personal health information electronically. Patient Education and Counseling 84:2, e9-e12
CrossRef36
Arjun Parasher, Pascal J. Goldschmidt-Clermont, James M. Tien. 2011. Healthcare Delivery as a Service System. , 191-214.
CrossRef37
Janine R. A. Kamath, Amerett L. Donahoe-Anshus. 2011. Electronic Health Record. , 309-332.
CrossRef38
Peter Paul Yu. (2011) The Evolution of Oncology Electronic Health Records. The Cancer Journal 17:4, 197-202
CrossRef39
Richard C. Wasserman. (2011) Electronic Medical Records (EMRs), Epidemiology, and Epistemology: Reflections on EMRs and Future Pediatric Clinical Research. Academic Pediatrics 11:4, 280-287
CrossRef40
Robert L. Hunter. (2011) Health information technology costs and patient safety concerns. Osteopathic Family Physician 3:4, 154-160
CrossRef41
Frances E. Sam, Andrea M. Bonnick. (2011) Office Computer Systems for the Dental Office. Dental Clinics of North America 55:3, 549-557
CrossRef42
Daniel S. Gaylin, Adil Moiduddin, Shamis Mohamoud, Katie Lundeen, Jennifer A. Kelly. (2011) Public Attitudes about Health Information Technology, and Its Relationship to Health Care Quality, Costs, and Privacy. Health Services Research 46:3, 920-938
CrossRef43
Blake Lesselroth, William Eisenhauer, Shawn Adams, David A. Dorr, Christine Randall, Paulette Channon, Kas Adams, Victoria Church, Robert Felder, David Douglas. (2011) Simulation Modeling of a Check-in and Medication Reconciliation Ambulatory Clinic Kiosk. Journal of Healthcare Engineering 2:2, 197-222
CrossRef44
Mollie H. Ullman-Cullere, Jomol P. Mathew. (2011) Emerging landscape of genomics in the electronic health record for personalized medicine. Human Mutation 32:5, 512-516
CrossRef45
Joseph Finkelstein, Michael S. Barr, Pranav P. Kothari, David K. Nace, Matthew Quinn. (2011) Patient-Centered Medical Home Cyberinfrastructure. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 40:5, S225-S233
CrossRef46
Caprice Knapp, Vanessa Madden, Mircea Marcu, Hua Wang, Charlotte Curtis, Phyllis Sloyer, Elizabeth Shenkman. (2011) Information seeking behaviors of parents whose children have life-threatening illnesses. Pediatric Blood & Cancer 56:5, 805-811
CrossRef47
Se-Eun Bae, Ha-Yeon Kim, Hyeon-S. Son, Hyun-Sill Rhee. (2011) Recognition of Personal Health Record. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society 12:4, 1703-1710
CrossRef48
A. N. Kho, J. A. Pacheco, P. L. Peissig, L. Rasmussen, K. M. Newton, N. Weston, P. K. Crane, J. Pathak, C. G. Chute, S. J. Bielinski, I. J. Kullo, R. Li, T. A. Manolio, R. L. Chisholm, J. C. Denny. (2011) Electronic Medical Records for Genetic Research: Results of the eMERGE Consortium. Science Translational Medicine 3:79, 79re1-79re1
CrossRef49
Steven Kritz, Lawrence S. Brown Jr, Melissa Chu, Carlota John-Hull, Charles Madray, Roberto Zavala, Ben Louie. (2011) Electronic medical record system at an opioid agonist treatment programme: study design, pre-implementation results and post-implementation trends. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practiceno-no
CrossRef50
Eleanor T. Lewis, Jodie A. Trafton. (2011) Opioid Use in Primary Care: Asking the Right Questions. Current Pain and Headache Reports 15:2, 137-143
CrossRef51
Yi You Mei, Jenna Marquard, Cynthia Jacelon, Audrey L. DeFeo. (2011) Designing and evaluating an electronic patient falls reporting system: Perspectives for the implementation of health information technology in long-term residential care facilities. International Journal of Medical Informatics
CrossRef52
Terrence L. Trentman, Jeff T. Mueller, Keith J. Ruskin, Brie N. Noble, Christine A. Doyle. (2011) Adoption of anesthesia information management systems by US anesthesiologists. Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 25:2, 129-135
CrossRef53
Ben Louie, Steven Kritz, Lawrence S. Brown Jr, Melissa Chu, Charles Madray, Roberto Zavala. (2011) Electronic health information system at an opioid treatment programme: roadblocks to implementation. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practiceno-no
CrossRef54
Vaishali Patel, Erika L. Abramson, Alison Edwards, Sameer Malhotra, Rainu Kaushal. (2011) Physicians’ potential use and preferences related to health information exchange. International Journal of Medical Informatics 80:3, 171-180
CrossRef55
R A Wilke, H Xu, J C Denny, D M Roden, R M Krauss, C A McCarty, R L Davis, T Skaar, J Lamba, G Savova. (2011) The Emerging Role of Electronic Medical Records in Pharmacogenomics. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 89:3, 379-386
CrossRef56
Barbara Cherry, Ken Carpenter. (2011) Evaluating the Effectiveness of Electronic Medical Records in a Long Term Care Facility Using Process Analysis. Journal of Healthcare Engineering 2:1, 75-86
CrossRef57
Liette Lapointe, Muriel Mignerat, Isabelle Vedel. (2011) The IT productivity paradox in health: A stakeholder's perspective. International Journal of Medical Informatics 80:2, 102-115
CrossRef58
Carrie McGinn, Sonya Grenier, Julie Duplantie, Nicola Shaw, Claude Sicotte, Luc Mathieu, Yvan Leduc, France Légaré, Marie-Pierre Gagnon. (2011) Comparison of user groups' perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic health records: a systematic review. BMC Medicine 9:1, 46
CrossRef59
Kurt Stanberry. (2011) US and global efforts to expand the use of electronic health records. Records Management Journal 21:3, 214-224
CrossRef60
J.L. Catalán-Arlandis. (2011) Impacto de la informatización de la prescripción en atención primaria sobre los costes de medicamentos mediante análisis de series temporales. Revista de Calidad Asistencial 26:1, 18-27
CrossRef61
Norm Archer, Mihail Cocosila. (2011) A Comparison of Physician Pre-Adoption and Adoption Views on Electronic Health Records in Canadian Medical Practices. Journal of Medical Internet Research 13:3,
CrossRef62
Paul Rosen, Steven J Spalding, Michael J Hannon, Robert M Boudreau, C Kent Kwoh. (2011) Parent Satisfaction With the Electronic Medical Record in an Academic Pediatric Rheumatology Practice. Journal of Medical Internet Research 13:2,
CrossRef63
Man Young Park, Eun Yeob Kim, Young Ho Lee, Woojae Kim, Ku Sang Kim, Seung Soo Sheen, Hong Seok Lim, Rae Woong Park. (2011) Analysis of Relationship between Levofloxacin and Corrected QT Prolongation Using a Clinical Data Warehouse. Healthcare Informatics Research 17:1, 58
CrossRef64
S. H. Houser, D. Au, R. Weech-Maldonado. (2011) The Impact of Geography on Hospital Electronic Health Records Implementation in Alabama. Applied Clinical Informatics 2:3, 270-283
CrossRef65
Chandra Y. Osborn, Lindsay Satterwhite Mayberry, Shelagh A. Mulvaney, Rachel Hess. (2010) Patient Web Portals to Improve Diabetes Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Current Diabetes Reports 10:6, 422-435
CrossRef66
Michael V. Boland. (2010) Meaningful Use of Electronic Health Records in Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 117:12, 2239-2240
CrossRef67
Eric S. Holmboe, Weifeng Weng, Gerald K. Arnold, Sherrie H. Kaplan, Sharon-Lise Normand, Sheldon Greenfield, Sarah Hood, Rebecca S. Lipner. (2010) The Comprehensive Care Project: Measuring Physician Performance in Ambulatory Practice. Health Services Research 45:6p2, 1912-1933
CrossRef68
Kevin M. Baumlin, Nicholas Genes, Adam Landman, Jason S. Shapiro, Todd Taylor, Bruce Janiak. (2010) Electronic Collaboration: Using Technology to Solve Old Problems of Quality Care. Academic Emergency Medicine 17:12, 1312-1321
CrossRef69
2010. Directions of Improvement in Healthcare. , 23-37.
CrossRef70
Mangalmurti, Sandeep S., Murtagh, Lindsey, Mello, Michelle M., . (2010) Medical Malpractice Liability in the Age of Electronic Health Records. New England Journal of Medicine 363:21, 2060-2067
Full Text71
Lindsey Blevins Hoggle, Martin M. Yadrick, Elaine J. Ayres. (2010) A Decade of Work Coming Together: Nutrition Care, Electronic Health Records, and the HITECH Act. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 110:11, 1606-1614
CrossRef72
Donna M. Fick, Melinda R. Steis, Lorraine C. Mion, Joyce L. Walls. (2010) Computerized Decision Support for Delirium Superimposed on Dementia in Older Adults. Journal of Gerontological Nursing
CrossRef73
Janice P. Minard, Scott E. Turcotte, M. Diane Lougheed. (2010) Asthma Electronic Medical Records in Primary Care: An Integrative Review. Journal of Asthma 47:8, 895-912
CrossRef74
Christian J. H. Veillette. (2010) ABJS Carl T. Brighton Workshop on Health Informatics in Orthopaedic Surgery: Editorial Comment. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 468:10, 2561-2564
CrossRef75
Jan Horsky, Kerry McColgan, Justine E. Pang, Andrea J. Melnikas, Jeffrey A. Linder, Jeffrey L. Schnipper, Blackford Middleton. (2010) Complementary methods of system usability evaluation: Surveys and observations during software design and development cycles. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 43:5, 782-790
CrossRef76
Lisa I. Iezzoni. (2010) Multiple Chronic Conditions and Disabilities: Implications for Health Services Research and Data Demands. Health Services Research 45:5p2, 1523-1540
CrossRef77
Jing-Song Li, Xiao-Guang Zhang, Jian Chu, Muneou Suzuki, Kenji Araki. (2010) Design and Development of EMR Supporting Medical Process Management. Journal of Medical Systems
CrossRef78
Ann Scheck McAlearney, Paula H. Song, Julie Robbins, Annemarie Hirsch, Maria Jorina, Nina Kowalczyk, Deena Chisolm. (2010) Moving from Good to Great in Ambulatory Electronic Health Record Implementation. Journal for Healthcare Quality 32:5, 41-50
CrossRef79
CRAIG RICHARDSON, MARK HALL, ZAGROS MADJD-SADJADI. (2010) Lessons from Credit Bureaus for Improving the Market for Electronic Medical Records. Journal of Consumer Affairs 44:3, 546-556
CrossRef80
Daniel J. Pallin, Ashley F. Sullivan, Rainu Kaushal, Carlos A. Camargo. (2010) Health information technology in US emergency departments. International Journal of Emergency Medicine 3:3, 181-185
CrossRef81
Katherine P. Liao, Tianxi Cai, Vivian Gainer, Sergey Goryachev, Qing Zeng-treitler, Soumya Raychaudhuri, Peter Szolovits, Susanne Churchill, Shawn Murphy, Isaac Kohane, Elizabeth W. Karlson, Robert M. Plenge. (2010) Electronic medical records for discovery research in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care & Research 62:8, 1120-1127
CrossRef82
William B. Millard. (2010) Electronic Health Records: Promises and Realities. Annals of Emergency Medicine 56:2, A17-A20
CrossRef83
Chenghui Li, Donna West-Strum. (2010) Patient Panel of Underserved Populations and Adoption of Electronic Medical Record Systems by Office-Based Physicians. Health Services Research 45:4, 963-984
CrossRef84
Siddharta G. Reddy, Stewart F. Babbott, Brent W. Beasley, Mohan M. Nadkarni, Eric J. Gertner, Eric S. Holmboe. (2010) Prevalence and Functionality of Electronic Health Records in Internal Medicine Continuity Clinics. Academic Medicine 85:8, 1369-1377
CrossRef85
Adam D. Cheriff, Akshay G. Kapur, Maggie Qiu, Curtis L. Cole. (2010) Physician productivity and the ambulatory EHR in a large academic multi-specialty physician group. International Journal of Medical Informatics 79:7, 492-500
CrossRef86
T. M. Wilkinson. (2010) Medical reasoning and the failure of electronic medical record systems in the United States. International Journal of Clinical Practice 64:7, 839-842
CrossRef87
John W. Saultz, Peggy OʼNeill, James M. Gill, Frances E. Biagioli, Shawn Blanchard, Jean P. OʼMalley, David Brown, John C. Rogers, Patricia A. Carney. (2010) Medical Student Exposure to Components of the Patient-Centered Medical Home During Required Ambulatory Clerkship Rotations: Implications for Education. Academic Medicine 85:6, 965-973
CrossRef88
Kurt C. Stange, Paul A. Nutting, William L. Miller, Carlos R. Jaén, Benjamin F. Crabtree, Susan A. Flocke, James M. Gill. (2010) Defining and Measuring the Patient-Centered Medical Home. Journal of General Internal Medicine 25:6, 601-612
CrossRef89
Richard Gershon, Nan E. Rothrock, Rachel T. Hanrahan, Liz J. Jansky, Mark Harniss, William Riley. (2010) The development of a clinical outcomes survey research application: Assessment CenterSM. Quality of Life Research 19:5, 677-685
CrossRef90
Deendayal Dinakarpandian, Arthur R. Williams, Chitra Dinakar. (2010) Physician needs in health informatics: Just ask the docs. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 125:6, 1401-1403.e4
CrossRef91
Adam B. Landman, Steven L. Bernstein, Allen L. Hsiao, Rani A. Desai. (2010) Emergency Department Information System Adoption in the United States. Academic Emergency Medicine 17:5, 536-544
CrossRef92
Gregory J. Esper, Oksana Drogan, William S. Henderson, Amanda Becker, Orly Avitzur, Daniel B. Hier. (2010) Health Information Technology and Electronic Health Records in Neurologic Practice. Neurologic Clinics 28:2, 411-427
CrossRef93
Greenberg, Jeffrey O., Dudley, Jessica C., Ferris, Timothy G., . (2010) Engaging Specialists in Performance-Incentive Programs. New England Journal of Medicine 362:17, 1558-1560
Full Text94
B. W. Hesse, C. Hanna, H. A. Massett, N. K. Hesse. (2010) Outside the Box: Will Information Technology Be a Viable Intervention to Improve the Quality of Cancer Care?. JNCI Monographs 2010:40, 81-89
CrossRef95
Rachel Paneth-Pollak, Julia A. Schillinger, Jessica M. Borrelli, Shoshanna Handel, Preeti Pathela, and Susan Blank. (2010) Using STD Electronic Medical Record Data to Drive Public Health Program Decisions in New York City. American Journal of Public Health 100:4, 586-590
CrossRef96
Mitchell A. Medow, Hal R. Arkes, Victoria A. Shaffer. (2010) Are Residents’ Decisions Influenced More by a Decision Aid or a Specialist’s Opinion? A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of General Internal Medicine 25:4, 316-320
CrossRef97
Lisa Webster, Rachelle F. Spiro. (2010) Health information technology: A new world for pharmacy. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association 50:2, e20-e34
CrossRef98
Eric G. Poon, Adam Wright, Steven R. Simon, Chelsea A. Jenter, Rainu Kaushal, Lynn A. Volk, Paul D. Cleary, Janice A. Singer, Alexis Z. Tumolo, David W. Bates. (2010) Relationship Between Use of Electronic Health Record Features and Health Care Quality. Medical Care 48:3, 203-209
CrossRef99
Aaron K. Massey, Paul N. Otto, Lauren J. Hayward, Annie I. Antón. (2010) Evaluating existing security and privacy requirements for legal compliance. Requirements Engineering 15:1, 119-137
CrossRef100
Matthew Wynia, Kyle Dunn. (2010) Dreams and Nightmares: Practical and Ethical Issues for Patients and Physicians Using Personal Health Records. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 38:1, 64-73
CrossRef101
Christian Torres. (2010) Small practices find little incentive to go electronic. Nature Medicine 16:3, 251-251
CrossRef102
Leslie Pickering Francis. (2010) The Physician-Patient Relationship and a National Health Information Network. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 38:1, 36-49
CrossRef103
D. Ashley Hill, Michael Cacciatore, Georgine M. Lamvu. (2010) Electronic prescribing influence on calcium supplementation: a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 202:3, 236.e1-236.e5
CrossRef104
Blumenthal, David, . (2010) Launching HITECH. New England Journal of Medicine 362:5, 382-385
Full Text105
CARSTEN H. MEYER, HANS-MARTIN HELB, FRANK G. HOLZ. (2010) A COMPUTER-BASED DOCUMENTATION AND DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OF CLINICALLY RELEVANT PARAMETERS DURING REPEATED ANTIVASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR OR STEROID INJECTIONS. Retina 30:2, 369-377
CrossRef106
Francine L. Maloney, Adam Wright. (2010) USB-based Personal Health Records: An analysis of features and functionality. International Journal of Medical Informatics 79:2, 97-111
CrossRef107
Shea, Steven, Hripcsak, George, . (2010) Accelerating the Use of Electronic Health Records in Physician Practices. New England Journal of Medicine 362:3, 192-195
Full Text108
Jennifer R. Zebrack, Kathlyn E. Fletcher, Brent W. Beasley, Jeff Whittle. (2010) Ambulatory Training Since Duty Hour Regulations: A Survey of Program Directors. The American Journal of Medicine 123:1, 89-94
CrossRef109
Tamára L. Box, Mary McDonell, Christian D. Helfrich, Robert L. Jesse, Stephan D. Fihn, John S. Rumsfeld. (2010) Strategies from a Nationwide Health Information Technology Implementation: The VA CART STORY. Journal of General Internal Medicine 25:S1, 72-76
CrossRef110
Howard L. Bleich, Warner V. Slack. (2010) Reflections on electronic medical records: When doctors will use them and when they will not. International Journal of Medical Informatics 79:1, 1-4
CrossRef111
Nir Menachemi, Thomas Powers, David W. Au, Robert G. Brooks. (2010) Predictors of Physician Satisfaction among Electronic Health Record System Users. Journal for Healthcare Quality 32:1, 35-41
CrossRef112
Kelly Rouse Riesenmy. (2010) Physician sensemaking and readiness for electronic medical records. The Learning Organization 17:2, 163-177
CrossRef113
Inyoung Choi, Ran Choi, Jonghyun Lee, Byung Gil Choi. (2010) Implementation of Single Source Based Hospital Information System for the Catholic Medical Center Affiliated Hospitals. Healthcare Informatics Research 16:2, 133
CrossRef114
Denise M. Hynes, Timothy Weddle, Nina Smith, Erika Whittier, David Atkins, Joseph Francis. (2010) Use of Health Information Technology to Advance Evidence-Based Care: Lessons from the VA QUERI Program. Journal of General Internal Medicine 25:S1, 44-49
CrossRef115
Stephen H. Taplin, David Rollason, Anne Camp, Kristen diDonato, Elizabeth Maggenheimer. (2010) Imagining an Electronic Medical Record for Turning Cancer Screening Knowledge into Practice. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 38:1, 89-97
CrossRef116
Terry Kind. (2009) The Internet as an adjunct for pediatric primary care. Current Opinion in Pediatrics 21:6, 805-810
CrossRef117
Matthew Mintz, Hugo J. Narvarte, Kevin E. OʼBrien, Klara K. Papp, Matthew Thomas, Steven J. Durning. (2009) Use of Electronic Medical Records by Physicians and Students in Academic Internal Medicine Settings. Academic Medicine 84:12, 1698-1704
CrossRef118
Carlo Bruno Giorda, Piero Guida, Angelo Avogaro, Claudio Cortese, Gian Francesco Mureddu, Alberto Corsini, Marco Antonio Comaschi, Enzo Manzato, Massimo Volpe, Giovanni Battista Zito, Gerardo Medea, Giuseppe Ventriglia, Giulio Titta, Gabriele Riccardi. (2009) Association of physiciansʼ accuracy in recording with quality of care in cardiovascular medicine. European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation 16:6, 722-728
CrossRef119
Charles D. MacLean, Michael Gagnon, Peter Callas, Benjamin Littenberg. (2009) The Vermont Diabetes Information System: A Cluster Randomized Trial of a Population Based Decision Support System. Journal of General Internal Medicine 24:12, 1303-1310
CrossRef120
Marie Gauthier, Isabelle Chevalier, Serge Gouin, Valérie Lamarre, Anthony Abela. (2009) Ceftriaxone for Refractory Acute Otitis Media. Pediatric Emergency Care 25:11, 739-743
CrossRef121
Spencer D. Dorn. (2009) United States Health Care Reform in 2009: A Primer for Gastroenterologists. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 7:11, 1168-1173
CrossRef122
M. Osborn, R. Day, J. Westbrook. (2009) Are specialist physicians missing out on the e-Health boat?. Internal Medicine Journal 39:10, 655-661
CrossRef123
George L. Jackson, Morris Weinberger. (2009) A Decade With the Chronic Care Model. Medical Care 47:9, 929-931
CrossRef124
Brian E Dixon, Julie J McGowan, Gary D Cravens. (2009) Knowledge sharing using codification and collaboration technologies to improve health care: lessons from the public sector. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 7:3, 249-259
CrossRef125
Michael N Cantor. (2009) Enabling personalized medicine through the use of healthcare information technology. Personalized Medicine 6:5, 589-594
CrossRef126
Robert J. Fortuna, Fang Zhang, Dennis Ross-Degnan, Francis X. Campion, Jonathan A. Finkelstein, Jamie B. Kotch, Adrianne C. Feldstein, David H. Smith, Steven R. Simon. (2009) Reducing the Prescribing of Heavily Marketed Medications: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of General Internal Medicine 24:8, 897-903
CrossRef127
Benjamin J. Powers, Steven C. Grambow, Matthew J. Crowley, David E. Edelman, Eugene Z. Oddone. (2009) Comparison of Medicine Resident Diabetes Care Between Veterans Affairs and Academic Health Care Systems. Journal of General Internal Medicine 24:8, 950-955
CrossRef128
(2009) Electronic Health Records in Hospitals. New England Journal of Medicine 361:4, 421-422
Full Text129
Thomas A. Horan, Susan M. Daniels, Sue S. Feldman. (2009) The prospective role of personal health records in streamlining and accelerating the disability determination process. Disability and Health Journal 2:3, 153-157
CrossRef130
Marianne Bush, Albert L. Lederer, Xun Li, Jay Palmisano, Shashank Rao. (2009) The alignment of information systems with organizational objectives and strategies in health care. International Journal of Medical Informatics 78:7, 446-456
CrossRef131
Kenneth H Buetow. (2009) Enabling personalized medicine through an interoperable IT infrastructure: an overview of the cancer Biomedical Informatics Grid ®. Personalized Medicine 6:4, 439-448
CrossRef132
Douglas E. Levy, Judy E. Garber, Alexandra E. Shields. (2009) Guidelines for Genetic Risk Assessment of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: Early Disagreements and Low Utilization. Journal of General Internal Medicine 24:7, 822-828
CrossRef133
Emily Carrier, Marc N. Gourevitch, Nirav R. Shah. (2009) Medical Homes. Medical Care 47:7, 714-722
CrossRef134
Jae Chul Lee, Denys T. Lau. (2009) Health information technology and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Some of the challenges ahead. Clinical Therapeutics 31:6, 1276-1278
CrossRef135
Michael F. Chiang, Michael V. Boland, James W. Margolis, Flora Lum, Michael D. Abramoff, P. Lloyd Hildebrand. (2009) Author reply. Ophthalmology 116:5, 1019
CrossRef136
Jha, Ashish K., DesRoches, Catherine M., Campbell, Eric G., Donelan, Karen, Rao, Sowmya R., Ferris, Timothy G., Shields, Alexandra, Rosenbaum, Sara, Blumenthal, David, . (2009) Use of Electronic Health Records in U.S. Hospitals. New England Journal of Medicine 360:16, 1628-1638
Full Text137
Deborah S. Collier, Jonathan Kay, Greg Estey, Dominic Surrao, Henry C. Chueh, Richard W. Grant. (2009) A rheumatology-specific informatics-based application with a disease activity calculator. Arthritis & Rheumatism 61:4, 488-494
CrossRef138
James C. Robinson, Lawrence P. Casalino, Robin R. Gillies, Diane R. Rittenhouse, Stephen S. Shortell, Sara Fernandes-Taylor. (2009) Financial Incentives, Quality Improvement Programs, and the Adoption of Clinical Information Technology. Medical Care 47:4, 411-417
CrossRef139
Katharine Gammon. (2009) Clinical epidemiology: Archived answers. Nature 458:7236, 278-280
CrossRef140
Larry W. Lawhorne. (2009) Managing Laboratory Results in the Nursing Home Setting: Looking for Waldo or Seeking Wisdom. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 10:3, 153-154
CrossRef141
Brian H. Shirts, Subashan Perera, Joseph T. Hanlon, Yazan F. Roumani, Stephanie A. Studenski, David A. Nace, Michael J. Becich, Steven M. Handler. (2009) Provider Management of and Satisfaction With Laboratory Testing in the Nursing Home Setting: Results of a National Internet-Based Survey. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 10:3, 161-166.e3
CrossRef142
Claire Kim, Katherine Disare, Melissa Pfeiffer, Bonnie D. Kerker, Katharine H. McVeigh. (2009) Effects of Individual and Neighborhood Characteristics on the Timeliness of Provider Designation for Early Intervention Services in New York City. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics 30:1, 38-49
CrossRef143
Tsipi Heart, Philip O'Reilly, David Sammon, John O'Donoghue. (2009) Bottom-up or top-down?: A comparative analysis of electronic health record diffusion in Ireland and Israel. Journal of Systems and Information Technology 11:3, 244-268
CrossRef144
Sun-Mi Lee, Rae Woong Park. (2009) Basic Concepts and Principles of Data Mining in Clinical Practice. Journal of Korean Society of Medical Informatics 15:2, 175
CrossRef145
Man Young Park, Young Ho Lee, Eun Yeob Kim, Woo Jae Kim, Hye Jin Kam, Jong Pill Choi, Tae Hwa Han, Un-Gu Kang, Rae Woong Park. (2009) A Data Warehouse Based Retrospective Post-marketing Surveillance Method: A Feasibility Test with Fluoxetine. Journal of Korean Society of Medical Informatics 15:2, 191
CrossRef146
Adam Wright, Elizabeth A McGlinchey, Eric G Poon, Chelsea A Jenter, David W Bates, Steven R Simon. (2009) Ability to Generate Patient Registries Among Practices With and Without Electronic Health Records. Journal of Medical Internet Research 11:3,
CrossRef147
C. PATTACINI, G. F. RIVOLTA, C. DI PERNA, F. RICCARDI, A. TAGLIAFERRI, . (2009) A web-based clinical record ‘xl’Emofilia ® ’ for outpatients with haemophilia and allied disorders in the Region of Emilia-Romagna: features and pilot use. Haemophilia 15:1, 150-158
CrossRef148
Melissa M. Goldstein, David Blumenthal. (2008) Building an Information Technology Infrastructure. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36:4, 709-715
CrossRef149
(2008) Electronic Health Records in Ambulatory Care. New England Journal of Medicine 359:17, 1848-1849
Full Text150
Randall D Cebul, James B Rebitzer, Lowell J Taylor, Mark E Votruba. (2008) Organizational Fragmentation and Care Quality in the U.S. Healthcare System. Journal of Economic Perspectives 22:4, 93-113
CrossRef151
Janet Morrison, Maded, Per Lindberg. (2008) When No One Has Time. AAOHN Journal 56:9, 373-378
CrossRef152
James B. Rebitzer, Mari Rege, Christopher Shepard. 2008. Influence, information overload, and information technology in health care. , 43-69.
CrossRef
- Letters
