Cited by 438Electronic Health Records SystemsPrimary Care and Health OutcomesMedical Coding and Health Information

Electronic Health Record Use and the Quality of Ambulatory Care in the United States

Linder, Jeffrey A., Ma, Jun, Bates, David W., Middleton, Blackford, Stafford, Randall S.·2007·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) have been proposed as a sustainable solution for improving the quality of medical care. We assessed the association between EHR use, as implemented, and the quality of ambulatory care in a nationally representative survey. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of visits in the 2003 and 2004 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. We examined EHR use throughout the United States and the association of EHR use with 17 ambulatory quality indicators. Performance on quality indicators was defined as the percentage of applicable visits in which patients received recommended care. RESULTS: Electronic health records were used in 18% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15%-22%) of the estimated 1.8 billion ambulatory visits (95% CI, 1.7-2.0 billion) in the United States in 2003 and 2004. For 14 of the 17 quality indicators, there was no significant difference in performance between visits with vs without EHR use. Categories of these indicators included medical management of common diseases, recommended antibiotic prescribing, preventive counseling, screening tests, and avoiding potentially inappropriate medication prescribing in elderly patients. For 2 quality indicators, visits to medical practices using EHRs had significantly better performance: avoiding benzodiazepine use for patients with depression (91% vs 84%; P = .01) and avoiding routine urinalysis during general medical examinations (94% vs 91%; P = .003). For 1 quality indicator, visits to practices using EHRs had significantly worse quality: statin prescribing to patients with hypercholesterolemia (33% vs 47%; P = .01). CONCLUSION: As implemented, EHRs were not associated with better quality ambulatory care.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinte.167.13.1400

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Simply having an electronic health record appears to have little impact on quality by itself.

    “Simply having an electronic health record appears to have little impact on quality by itself.3 4”
  • Most available studies were conducted by EHR developers and examined only a few error types related to order entry (CPOE).

    “The few available studies have largely been conducted by the developers of the EHRs and have focused on the effect of order entry (CPOE) systems on a limited number of error types.[17][18][19][20]”

    From EHR Safety: The Way Forward to Safe and Effective Systems (2008) · cites this paper as [20]

  • The first two widely cited CPOE studies did not demonstrate improvements in patient outcomes.

    “Although the first two studies have been widely cited as showing CPOE benefits, neither showed improvements in patient outcomes.20 -22”

    From EHR Safety: The Way Forward to Safe and Effective Systems (2008) · cites this paper as [20]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Linder, J. A., Ma, J., Bates, D. W., Middleton, B., & Stafford, R. S.
Affiliations
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
2007-07-09
Volume
167
Issue
13
Pages
1400
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2160379455
Cited by
438
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 42
FWCI
96.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01 HS11313, K08HS014563)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
Keywords
electronic health records, ambulatory care quality, quality indicators, EHR adoption, antibiotic prescribing, benzodiazepine prescribing, statin prescribing, hypercholesterolemia, urine analysis, preventive counseling, National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Ambulatory Care, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Health Care, Retrospective Studies, United States, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Smoking Cessation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review