Environmental market factors associated with electronic health record adoption among cancer hospitals.

BackgroundThe digitalization studies in public hospitals in Türkiye started with the Health Transformation Program in 2003. As digitalization was accomplished, the policymakers needed to measure hospitals’ electronic health record (EHR) usage and adoptions. The ministry of health has been measuring the dissemination of meaningful usage and adoption of EHR since 2013 using Electronic Medical Record Adoption Model (EMRAM). The first published study about this analysis covered the surveys applied between 2013 and 2017. The results showed that 63.1% of all hospitals in Türkiye had at least basic EHR functions, and 36% had comprehensive EHR functions. Measuring the countrywide EHR adoption level is becoming popular in the world. This study aims to measure adoption levels of EHR in public hospitals in Türkiye, indicate the change to the previous study, and make a benchmark with other countries measuring national EHR adoption levels. The research question of this study is to reveal whether there has been a change in the adoption level of EHR in the three years since 2018 in Türkiye. Also, make a benchmark with other countries such as the US, Japan, and China in country-wide EHR adoption in 2021.MethodsIn 2021, 717 public hospitals actively operating in Türkiye completed the EMRAM survey. The survey results, deals with five topics (General Stage Status, Information Technology Security, Electronic Health Record/Clinical Data Repository, Clinical Documentation, Closed-Loop Management), was reviewed by the authors. Survey data were compared according to hospital type (Specialty Hospitals, General Hospitals, Teaching and Research Hospitals) in terms of general stage status. The data obtained from the survey results were analyzed with QlikView Personal Edition. The availability and prevalence of medical information systems and EHR functions and their use were measured.ResultsWe found that 33.7% of public hospitals in Türkiye have only basic EHR functions, and 66.3% have extensive EHR functions, which yields that all hospitals (100%) have at least basic EHR functions. That means remarkable progress from the previous study covering 2013 and 2017. This level also indicates that Türkiye has slightly better adoption from the US (96%) and much better than China (85.3%) and Korea (58.1%).ConclusionsAlthough there has been outstanding (50%) progress since 2017 in Turkish public hospitals, it seems there is still a long way to disseminate comprehensive EHR functions, such as closed-loop medication administration, clinical decision support systems, patient engagement, etc. Measuring the stage of EHR adoption at regular intervals and on analytical scales is an effective management tool for policymakers. The bottom-up adoption approach established for adopting and managing EHR functions in the US has also yielded successful results in Türkiye.

The goal of this study is to examine the trends of Electronic Health Record (EHR) adoption among hospitals in Japan compared to those in the United States. Japan's nationwide survey of hospitals was utilized to extract the EHR adoption rates among Japanese hospitals. Comparable datasets from the Healthcare Information and Management System Society (HIMSS) and the American Hospital Association (AHA) were utilized to extract EHR adoption rates among U.S. hospitals. The trends of EHR adoption were stratified and analyzed by hospital size and hospital ownership status. As of 2014, the U.S. hospitals had a wider adoption of 'basic with clinical notes' EHRs compared to Japan (45.6% vs. 27.3%), but large hospitals (400+ beds) in Japan have shown a similar adoption rate of EHR systems than those of U.S. (65.6% vs. 68.5%). Governmental hospitals tend to be more advanced in EHR adoption than non-profit hospitals in Japan (53.0% vs. 21.5%). Non-profit hospitals show the highest adoption rate of 'basic' EHR systems in the U.S. as of 2014 (63.3%). Using the 'certified' definition of EHRs, the EHR adoption rate was close to 96% among U.S. hospitals as of 2016; however, updated EHR adoption data from Japanese hospitals has yet to be collected and published. U.S. and Japan have considerably increased EHR adoption among hospitals; however, this analysis indicates different trends of EHR adoption among hospitals by size and ownership status in both countries. Learnings from government programs supporting EHR adoption in the U.S. and Japan can be helpful in planning useful strategies for future hospital-oriented health IT policies in other developed nations.

To identify area-level correlates of electronic health record (EHR) adoption and meaningful use (MU) among primary care providers (PCPs) enrolled in the Regional Extension Center (REC) Program. County-level data on 2013 EHR adoption and MU among REC-enrolled PCPs were obtained from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and linked with other county-level data sources including the Area Resource File, American Community Survey, and Federal Communications Commission's broadband availability database. Hierarchical models with random intercepts for RECs were employed to assess associations between a broad set of area-level factors and county-level rates of EHR adoption and MU. Among the 2715 counties examined, the average county-level EHR adoption and MU rates for REC-enrolled PCPs were 87.5% and 54.2%, respectively. Community health center presence and Medicaid enrollment concentration were positively associated with EHR adoption, while metropolitan status and Medicare Advantage enrollment concentration were positively associated with MU. Health professional shortage area status and minority concentration were negatively associated with EHR adoption and MU. Increased financial incentives in areas with greater concentrations of Medicaid and Medicare enrollees may be encouraging EHR adoption and MU among REC-enrolled PCPs. Disparities in EHR adoption and MU in some low-resource and underserved areas remain a concern. Federal efforts to spur EHR adoption and MU have demonstrated some early success; however, some geographic variations in EHR diffusion indicate that greater attention needs to be paid to ensuring equitable uptake and use of EHRs throughout the US.

The aim of this study was to examine the impact of electronic health record (EHR) adoption on hospital financial performance. We constructed a longitudinal panel using data from the three secondary sources: (a) the 2007-2010 American Hospital Association (AHA) Annual Survey, (b) the 2007-2010 AHA Annual Survey Information Technology Supplement, and (c) the 2007-2011 Medicare Cost Reports from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Because potential financial benefits attributable to EHR adoption may take some time to accrue, we ran regressions with lags of 1 and 2 years that included hospital and year fixed effects to examine the relationship between the level of EHR adoption and three hospital financial performance measures. A change in the level of EHR adoption was not associated with changes in operating margin or return on assets within hospitals. However, total margin was significantly improved, after 2 years, in hospitals that moved from no EHR to having a comprehensive EHR in all areas of their hospital (β = 0.030, p < .034). On the other hand, hospitals that increased their level of EHR adoption but did not achieve hospital-wide comprehensive adoption did not experience changes in any financial performance measures examined. The improvements in total margin, as opposed to operating margin, are likely due to hospital incentive payments under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act that are reflected in nonpatient revenues and therefore show up in total margin calculations. Thus, after 2 years of EHR adoption, hospital financial performance is observed to improve based only on meaningful use incentive payments. More research will be needed to determine whether EHR adoption impacts financial performance on a longer time horizon.

BackgroundDespite mandates and incentives for electronic health record (EHR) adoption, little is known about factors predicting physicians’ satisfaction following EHR implementation.ObjectiveTo measure predictors of physician satisfaction following EHR adoption.MethodsA total of 163 physicians completed a mailed survey before and after EHR implementation through a statewide pilot project in Massachusetts. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of physician satisfaction with their current practice situation in 2009 and generalized estimating equations accounted for clustering.ResultsThe response rate was 77% in 2005 and 68% in 2009. In 2005, prior to EHR adoption, 28% of physicians were very satisfied with their current practice situation compared to 25% in 2009, following EHR adoption (P < .001). In multivariate analysis, physician satisfaction following EHR adoption was correlated with self-reported ease of EHR implementation (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 5.7, 95% CI 2.1 - 16), resources for practice improvement (adjusted OR = 2.6, 95% CI 1.2 - 6.1), pre-intervention satisfaction (adjusted OR = 4.8, 95% CI 1.5 - 15), and stress (adjusted OR = 5.3, 95% CI 1.1 - 25). Male physicians reported lower satisfaction following EHR adoption (adjusted OR = 0.3, 95% CI 0.2 - 0.6).ConclusionsInterventions to expand EHR use should consider additional support for practices with fewer resources for improvement and ensure ease of EHR implementation. EHR adoption may be a factor in alleviating physicians’ stress. Addressing physicians’ satisfaction prior to practice transformation and anticipating greater dissatisfaction among male physicians will be essential to retaining the physician workforce and ensuring the quality of care they deliver.

Despite evidence suggesting higher quality and safer care in hospitals with comprehensive electronic health record (EHR) systems, factors related to advanced system usability remain largely unknown, particularly among nurses. Little empirical research has examined sociotechnical factors, such as the work environment, that may shape the relationship between advanced EHR adoption and quality of care. The objective of this study was to examine the independent and joint effects of comprehensive EHR adoption and the hospital work environment on nurse reports of EHR usability and nurse-reported quality of care and safety. This study was a secondary analysis of nurse and hospital survey data. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models were used to assess the relationship between EHR adoption level, work environment, and a set of EHR usability and quality/safety outcomes. The sample included 12,377 nurses working in 353 hospitals. In fully adjusted models, comprehensive EHR adoption was associated with lower odds of nurses reporting poor usability outcomes, such as dissatisfaction with the system (odds ratio [OR]: 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61-0.92). The work environment was associated with all usability outcomes with nurses in better environments being less likely to report negatively. Comprehensive EHRs (OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.71-0.96) and better work environments (OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.42-0.52) were associated with lower odds of nurses reporting fair/poor quality of care, while poor patient safety grade was associated with the work environment (OR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.46-0.54), but not EHR adoption level. Our findings suggest that adoption of a comprehensive EHR is associated with more positive usability ratings and higher quality of care. We also found that-independent of EHR adoption level-the hospital work environment plays a significant role in how nurses evaluate EHR usability and whether EHRs have their intended effects on improving quality and safety of care.

reat physicians from Hippocrates to William Osler knew and taught about the importance of listening to patients' stories as fundamental to caring for them. Perhaps nowhere does this prescription ring truer than in the use of the electronic health record (EHR).

Numerous studies have examined the relationship between physician practice characteristics and electronic health record (EHR) adoption. Little is known about how payer mix influences physicians' decisions to implement EHR systems. This study examines how different proportions of Medicare, Medicaid, and privately insured patients in physicians' practices influence EHR adoption. Data from a large-scale survey of physician's use of information technologies in Florida were analyzed. Physicians were categorized based on their responses to questions regarding the proportion of patients in their practice that use Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance products. The binary dependent variable of interest was EHR adoption among physicians. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were computed using logistic regression modeling techniques. The model examined the effect of changes in each payer type on EHR adoption, controlling for various practice characteristics. Physicians with the highest percentage of Medicaid patients in their practices were significantly less likely to indicate using an EHR system when compared with those in the low-volume Medicaid group (OR = 0.690; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.50-0.95). No differences in EHR adoption were detected among physicians in the low, median, and high Medicare volume classifications. Among the private payer classifications, physicians whose practices were in the median group indicated significantly greater EHR use than those with relatively low levels of privately insured patients (OR = 1.62; 95% CI = 1.16-2.27). Those in the high-volume private payer group were also more likely than the low-volume group to have an EHR system, but this trend did not reach statistical significance (OR = 1.44; 95% CI = 0.96-2.16). Governmental insurance programs are either not influencing or negatively influencing EHR adoption among physicians in Florida. Given the quality and cost benefits associated with EHR use (particularly for health care payers), policymakers should consider strategies to incentivize or reward EHR adoption among doctors who care for Medicare and Medicaid patients.

Adoption of electronic health records in Korean tertiary teaching and general hospitals

Heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes mellitus collectively account for >1.37 million US deaths each year.1 Compounding the tragedy is the knowledge that many of those deaths could be avoided through better application of clinical guidelines related to primary and secondary prevention or disease management. The combined control of blood pressure, lipids, and glucose has been shown to substantially reduce mortality and cardiovascular events.2,3 Screening for colon, cervical, breast, and lung cancer has been proven to reduce age-adjusted mortality from these diseases.4 In recognition of the common risk factors across these disease areas, the chief executive officers of the American Cancer Society, American Diabetes Association, and American Heart Association formed the Preventive Health Partnership in 2004. The 3 organizations have been working closely ever since to increase public awareness about healthy lifestyles, support policies that increase funding for and access to prevention programs and research, and increase the focus on prevention among healthcare providers. The American Cancer Society, American Diabetes Asso ciation, and American Heart Association have long developed scientific statements and evidence-based guidelines that promote public health services and clinical interventions of known efficacy for improving patient outcomes. Thus, maximizing adherence to quality-of-care guidelines is a high priority for each organization, because this will save lives and improve quality of life. This common purpose has served as a focal point for much of the collaborative work undertaken by the 3 organizations, including The Guideline Advantage (TGA). Launched in 2011, TGA is a jointly operated program designed to promote consistent use of evidence-based practice guidelines through existing healthcare technology in the outpatient setting. The ultimate goal of this undertaking is to improve patient care through quality improvement programs that provide feedback to clinicians and their practices on performance across various quality measures. The data gathered …

This study examined relationships of electronic health record (EHR) adoption to both the cost of care and quality outcomes in the acute care hospital setting. Data were mainly obtained from the 2009 National Inpatient Sample and the 2009 American Hospital Association EHR implementation survey. Two sets of dependent variables were identified. The first set included quality indicators of five cardiovascular and three cerebrovascular conditions and procedures. The second set included cost of care for the eight quality indicators. The independent variables were levels of EHR adoption. The results did not identify many differences in quality indicators across levels of EHR adoption, but consistently showed that patients in hospitals with EHR systems incurred lower costs than patients in hospitals without a comprehensive or basic EHR system. It was concluded that EHR adoption is more likely to be associated with the cost of patient care than improving quality indicators and clinical outcomes.

The government of Saudi Arabia has been working on the development of eHealth in the country which includes, the move from paper-based health records to Electronic Health Records (EHR). But, the implementation of EHR in the country is not much progressed. The present paper aims to measure adopting a unified electronic health record in Saudi Arabia from the resident's perspective. The descriptive study was conducted by the survey method in Saudi Arabia. The primary data was collected using a structured questionnaire. Self-administered online questionnaires were distributed to 300 respondents in various provinces via social media over a period of three months. The study used a Convenient Sampling technique and received 158 valid questionnaires from the respondents with a response rate of 58.66%. The data were analyzed using SAS version 0.4. The results show that 98.07% of the male participants and 88.88% of the female respondents were expressed their acceptance towards the adoption of EHR at the national level, whereas 68.26% of the male and 66.66% of the female respondents were expressed their acceptance at the global level. The study conducted the Logistic Regression and found no statistically significant differences between the gender, region, and education level of the respondents and acceptance of adoption of unified EHR at the national and global level. The study found that Saudi Arabia residents are supporting the adoption of unified EHR at both national and global levels. The findings are useful for policymakers to understand the people’s perceptions about the adoption of unified EHR in the country.

Efforts to promote adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) have focused on primary care physicians, who are now expected to exchange data electronically with other providers, including specialists. However, the variation of EHR adoption among specialists is underexplored. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study to determine the association between physician specialty and the prevalence of EHR adoption, and a retrospective serial cross-sectional study to determine the association of physician specialty and the rate of EHR adoption over time. We used the 2005-2009 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. We considered fourteen specialties, and four definitions of EHR adoption (any EHR, basic EHR, full EHR, and a novel definition of EHR sophistication). We used multivariable logistic regression, and adjusted for several covariates (geography, practice characteristics, revenue characteristics, physician degree). Physician specialty was significantly associated with EHR adoption, regardless of the EHR definition, after adjusting for covariates. Psychiatrists, dermatologists, pediatricians, ophthalmologists, and general surgeons were significantly less likely to adopt EHRs, compared to the reference group of family medicine/general practitioners. After adjustment for covariates, these specialties were 44-94% less likely to adopt EHRs than the reference group. EHR adoption increased in all specialties, by approximately 40% per year. The rate of EHR adoption over time did not significantly vary by specialty. Although EHR adoption is increasing in all specialties, adoption varies widely by specialty. In order to insure each individual's network of providers can electronically share data, widespread adoption of EHRs is needed across all specialties.

Electronic health records (EHRs) may help local health departments (LHDs) to improve services and thereby promote and protect population health. Yet, little is known about nationwide trends and correlates of EHR use by LHDs. We examine relative contributions of LHD finances, leadership, and governance to EHR adoption and use from 2010 to 2013. The impact of LHD service provision and meaningful use factors on EHR use is explored in depth. Combining data from the National Association of County & City Health Officials Profile survey and the Area Health Resource File, logistic regression models were used to examine EHR use in 2013. Multinomial logistic models examined EHR adoption, use, or discontinuation from 2010 to 2013. EHR usage data were available for 514 and 488 LHDs in 2010 and 2013, respectively. A total of 117 LHDs had data for both 2010 and 2013. Outcomes included dichotomized measures of LHD self-reported use of EHRs in 2010 and 2013. For LHDs with 2 years of data, a 4-category variable measuring self-reported EHR use, nonuse, adoption, or discontinuation was analyzed. Overall LHD EHR use did not increase significantly between 2010 (19.3%) and 2013 (22.0%). While 15% of LHDs reported adopting EHRs from 2010 to 2013, another 8.5% reported discontinuing use of EHRs during this time. Likelihood of EHR use was strongly associated with LHD clinical service characteristics, per capita expenditures, and state governance structure. EHRs do not appear to be rapidly diffusing across LHDs, and retention of current systems may be a concern. Given trends away from clinical service provision and other pressing demands for LHD resources, the benefits of EHR adoption are unclear.

Electronic health records (EHRs) have become ubiquitous in orthopaedics. Although they offer certain benefits, they have been cited as a factor that can contribute to provider burnout. Little is known about the degree to which EHR adoption is associated with provider and practice characteristics or outpatient and surgical volume. (1) What was the rate of EHR adoption in orthopaedics and how are physician and practice characteristics associated with adoption? (2) How is EHR adoption related to outpatient productivity? (3) How is EHR adoption associated with surgical volume? We conducted this retrospective analysis by linking three publicly available Medicare databases, which we chose for their reliability in reporting because they are provided by a government-funded entity. We included providers in the 2016 Physician Compare dataset who reported a primary specialty of orthopaedic surgery. The EHR adoption status for these providers between 2011 and 2016 was determined using the Meaningful Use Eligible Professional public use files, which we chose to standardize both adoption and usage of EHRs. Provider characteristics, from the Physician Compare dataset, were compared between non-adopters, early adopters (who adopted EHR in 2011 and 2012), and late adopters (2016) using a multivariate logistic analysis, due to the binary nature of the dependent variable (adoption). To measure productivity and billing, we used the 2012 and 2016 Medicare Utilization and Payment datasets. To measure productivity before and after EHR adoption, we compared the number of services for select Current Procedural Terminology codes between 2012 and 2016 for providers who first adopted EHR in 2013, and performed the same comparison for non-adopters for the same years. Paired t-tests were used where volume in 2012 and 2016 were being compared, and multivariate analysis was performed. By 2016, 10,904 of 21,484 orthopaedic providers (51%) had adopted EHRs, with an increase from 8% to 46% during the incentive phase (2011 to 2014) and an increase from 44% to 51% during the penalty phase (2015 to 2016). After analyzing factors associated with adoption, it was most notable that for every additional year since graduation, the odds of adopting EHR later increased by 4.14 (95% confidence interval 4.00 to 4.33; p < 0.001). After adoption, providers who adopted EHRs increased the mean number of Medicare outpatient visits per year from 439 to 470 (mean difference, increase of 31 procedures [95% CI 24 to 39]; p < 0.001), and providers who did not use EHRs decreased from 378 to 368 visits per year (median difference, decrease of 10 procedures [95% CI 8.0 to 12.0]; p < 0.001). EHR was not associated with billing for Level 4-5 visits, after adjusting for practice size and pre-adoption volumes (p = 0.32; R = 0.51). EHR adoption was not associated with surgical volume for 10 of 11 common orthopaedic procedures. However, two additional TKA procedures annually could be attributed to EHR adoption, when compared with non-adopters (p = 0.03; R = 0.65). After adoption, orthopaedic surgeons increased their annual TKA volume from 42 to 48 (mean difference, increase of 6 [95% CI 4.0 to 7.0]; p < 0.001), while non-adopting orthopaedic surgeons increased their annual surgical volume for TKA from 28 to 30 (median difference, increase of 2 [95% CI 2.0 to 4.0]; p < 0.001). In orthopaedics, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act resulted in approximately half of self-reported orthopaedic surgeons adopting EHR from 2011 to 2016. Considering the high cost of most EHRs and the substantial investment in adoption incentives, this adoption rate may not be sufficient to fully realize the objectives of the HITECH Act. Diffusion of technology is a vast field of study within social theory. Prominent sociologist Everett M. Rogers details its complexity in Diffusion of Innovations. Diffusion of technology is impacted by factors such as the possibility to sample the innovation without commitment, opinion leadership, and observability of results in a peer network, to name a few. Incorporating these principles, where appropriate, into a more focused action plan may facilitate technological diffusion for future innovations. Lastly, EHR adoption was not associated with higher-level billing or surgical volume. This might suggest that EHRs have not had a meaningful clinical benefit, but this needs to be further investigated by relating these trends to patient outcomes or other quality measures. Level III, therapeutic study.