Electronic health records and health care quality over time in a federally qualified health center.

The longitudinal effects of electronic health records (EHRs) on ambulatory quality are not clear. It is not known whether adoption and meaningful use of EHRs result in a brief period of quality improvement that then plateaus, or whether with ongoing use quality improvement continues. We studied health care quality at six sites of a Federally Qualified Health Center in New York State over 3 years (2008-2010) for 25 290 unique patients. Patients were twice as likely to receive recommended care on a set of 12 quality measures (11 of which are included in Stage 1 Meaningful Use) 3 years post-EHR implementation, compared to 1-year post-implementation (odds ratio 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.91-2.03). The magnitude of absolute improvement ranged from 5% to 20% per measure. EHRs were associated with continuing improvement in health care quality for at least 3 years post-implementation in the safety-net setting of a Federally Qualified Health Center.

Effect of an electronic alert on treatment of skin and soft tissue infections.

This is a prospective intervention study conducted between 2007 and 2011 to evaluate whether an electronic alert can influence provider practice in treatment of skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs). A best-practice alert (BPA) was programmed to appear for intervention ICD-9 SSTI diagnoses. Controls were patients who had other SSTI ICD-9 codes where the BPA was not programmed to fire. Rate of culture taken in patients was compared between patients in the intervention and control groups. We found that cultures were taken among 13.5% of the intervention group and 5.4% of the control group (p <.0001). A logistic regression analysis controlling for covariates showed the odds of the intervention group having a culture taken was 2.6 times that of the control group. The results of this study support the use of BPAs for improving the management of SSTIs.

Accuracy of electronically reported "meaningful use" clinical quality measures: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The federal Electronic Health Record Incentive Program requires electronic reporting of quality from electronic health records, beginning in 2014. Whether electronic reports of quality are accurate is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To measure the accuracy of electronic reporting compared with manual review. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: A federally qualified health center with a commercially available electronic health record. PATIENTS: All adult patients eligible in 2008 for 12 quality measures (using 8 unique denominators) were identified electronically. One hundred fifty patients were randomly sampled per denominator, yielding 1154 unique patients. MEASUREMENTS: Receipt of recommended care, assessed by both electronic reporting and manual review. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and absolute rates of recommended care were measured. RESULTS: Sensitivity of electronic reporting ranged from 46% to 98% per measure. Specificity ranged from 62% to 97%, positive predictive value from 57% to 97%, and negative predictive value from 32% to 99%. Positive likelihood ratios ranged from 2.34 to 24.25 and negative likelihood ratios from 0.02 to 0.61. Differences between electronic reporting and manual review were statistically significant for 3 measures: Electronic reporting underestimated the absolute rate of recommended care for 2 measures (appropriate asthma medication [38% vs. 77%; P < 0.001] and pneumococcal vaccination [27% vs. 48%; P < 0.001]) and overestimated care for 1 measure (cholesterol control in patients with diabetes [57% vs. 37%; P = 0.001]). LIMITATION: This study addresses the accuracy of the measure numerator only. CONCLUSION: Wide measure-by-measure variation in accuracy threatens the validity of electronic reporting. If variation is not addressed, financial incentives intended to reward high quality may not be given to the highest-quality providers. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Strengthening public health and primary care collaboration through electronic health records.

Electronic health records (EHRs) have great potential to serve as a catalyst for more effective coordination between public health departments and primary care providers (PCP) in maintaining healthy communities. As a system for documenting patient health data, EHRs can be harnessed to improve public health surveillance for communicable and chronic illnesses. EHRs facilitate clinical alerts informed by public health goals that guide primary care physicians in real time in their diagnosis and treatment of patients. As health departments reassess their public health agendas, the use of EHRs to facilitate this agenda in primary care settings should be considered. PCPs and EHR vendors, in turn, will need to configure their EHR systems and practice workflows to align with public health priorities as these agendas include increased involvement of primary care providers in addressing public health concerns.

Impact of integrating public health clinical decision support alerts into electronic health records on testing for gastrointestinal illness.

Laboratory testing by clinicians is essential to outbreak investigations. Electronic health records may increase testing through clinical decision support that alerts providers about existing outbreaks and facilitates laboratory ordering. The impact on laboratory testing was evaluated for foodborne disease outbreaks between 2006 and 2009. After controlling for standard public health messaging and season, decision support resulted in a significant increase in laboratory testing and may be useful in enhancing public health messaging and provider action.

Use of an electronic patient portal among disadvantaged populations.

BACKGROUND: Electronic patient portals give patients access to information from their electronic health record and the ability to message their providers. These tools are becoming more widely used and are expected to promote patient engagement with health care. OBJECTIVE: To quantify portal usage and explore potential differences in adoption and use according to patients' socioeconomic and clinical characteristics in a network of federally qualified health centers serving New York City and neighboring counties. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of data from portal and electronic health records. PARTICIPANTS: 74,368 adult patients seen between April 2008 and April 2010. MAIN MEASURES: Odds of receiving an access code to the portal, activating the account, and using the portal more than once KEY RESULTS: Over the 2 years of the study, 16% of patients (n = 11,903) received an access code. Of these, 60% (n = 7138) activated the account, and 49% (n = 5791) used the account two or more times. Patients with chronic conditions were more likely to receive an access code and to become repeat users. In addition, the odds of receiving an access code were significantly higher for whites, women, younger patients, English speakers, and the insured. The odds of repeat portal use, among those with activated accounts, increased with white race, English language, and private insurance or Medicaid compared to no insurance. Racial disparities were small but persisted in models that controlled for language, insurance, and health status. CONCLUSIONS: We found good early rates of adoption and use of an electronic patient portal during the first 2 years of its deployment among a predominantly low-income population, especially among patients with chronic diseases. Disparities in access to and usage of the portal were evident but were smaller than those reported recently in other populations. Continued efforts will be needed to ensure that portals are usable for and used by disadvantaged groups so that all patients benefit equally from these technologies.

Using electronic health record alerts to provide public health situational awareness to clinicians.

Alerting providers to public health situations requires timeliness and context-relevance, both lacking in current systems. Incorporating decision support tools into electronic health records may provide a way to deploy public health alerts to clinicians at the point of care. A timely process for responding to Health Alert Network messages sent by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene was developed by a network of community health centers. Alerts with order sets and recommended actions were created to notify primary care providers of local disease outbreaks. The process, effect, and lessons learned from alerts for Legionella, toxogenic E coli, and measles outbreaks are described. Electronic alerts have the potential to improve management of diseases during an outbreak, including appropriate laboratory testing, management guidance, and diagnostic assistance as well as to enhance bi-directional data exchange between clinical and public health organizations.