The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Clinical Information Technologies and Inpatient Outcomes: A Multiple Hospital Study
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite speculation that clinical information technologies will improve clinical and financial outcomes, few studies have examined this relationship in a large number of hospitals. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of urban hospitals in Texas using the Clinical Information Technology Assessment Tool, which measures a hospital's level of automation based on physician interactions with the information system. After adjustment for potential confounders, we examined whether greater automation of hospital information was associated with reduced rates of inpatient mortality, complications, costs, and length of stay for 167 233 patients older than 50 years admitted to responding hospitals between December 1, 2005, and May 30, 2006. RESULTS: We received a sufficient number of responses from 41 of 72 hospitals (58%). For all medical conditions studied, a 10-point increase in the automation of notes and records was associated with a 15% decrease in the adjusted odds of fatal hospitalizations (0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.97). Higher scores in order entry were associated with 9% and 55% decreases in the adjusted odds of death for myocardial infarction and coronary artery bypass graft procedures, respectively. For all causes of hospitalization, higher scores in decision support were associated with a 16% decrease in the adjusted odds of complications (0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.90). Higher scores on test results, order entry, and decision support were associated with lower costs for all hospital admissions (-$110, -$132, and -$538, respectively; P < .05). CONCLUSION: Hospitals with automated notes and records, order entry, and clinical decision support had fewer complications, lower mortality rates, and lower costs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Regression analysis of multivariate incomplete failure time data by modeling marginal distributions
Wei, L. J., Lin, D. Y., & Weissfeld, L. (1989) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1989.10478873 · Cited by 1,868
Improving Safety with Information Technology
Bates, D. W., & Gawande, A. A. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa020847 · Cited by 1,544
Types of Unintended Consequences Related to Computerized Provider Order Entry
Campbell, E. M., Sittig, D. F., Ash, J. S., Guappone, K. P., & Dykstra, R. H. (2006) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m2042 · Cited by 823
Computer Technology and Clinical Work: Still Waiting for Godot
Wears, R. L., & Berg, M. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.293.10.1261 · Cited by 448
Categorizing the unintended sociotechnical consequences of computerized provider order entry
Ash, J. S., Sittig, D. F., Dykstra, R. H., Guappone, K., Carpenter, J. D., & Seshadri, V. (2007) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.05.017 · Cited by 267
"e-Iatrogenesis": The Most Critical Unintended Consequence of CPOE and other HIT
Weiner, J. P., Kfuri, T., Chan, K., & Fowles, J. B. (2007) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m2338 · Cited by 189
Del Beccaro, M. A., Jeffries, H. E., Eisenberg, M. A., & Harry, E. D. (2006) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2006-0367 · Cited by 181
Cited by
Buntin, M. B., Burke, M. F., Hoaglin, M. C., & Blumenthal, D. (2011) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0178 · Cited by 1,311
Benefits and drawbacks of electronic health record systems
Menachemi, N., & Collum (2011) · Risk Management and Healthcare Policy · doi:10.2147/rmhp.s12985 · Cited by 909
Hospital Computing and the Costs and Quality of Care: A National Study
Himmelstein, D. U., Wright, A., & Woolhandler, S. (2010) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2009.09.004 · Cited by 212
Assessing electronic note quality using the physician documentation quality instrument (PDQI-9)
Bakken, S., Wrenn, J. O., Siegler, E. L., & Stetson, P. D. (2012) · Applied Clinical Informatics · doi:10.4338/aci-2011-11-ra-0070 · Cited by 182
Use of electronic clinical documentation: time spent and team interactions
Hripcsak, G., Vawdrey, D. K., Fred, M. R., & Bostwick, S. B. (2011) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/jamia.2010.008441 · Cited by 175
Metadata
- Authors
- Amarasingham, R., Plantinga, L., Diener-West, M., Gaskin, D. J., & Powe, N. R.
- Venue
- Archives of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2009-01-26
- Volume
- 169
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 108
- ISSN
- 0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1980566721
- Cited by
- 354
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 89.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clinical Information Technologies and Inpatient Outcomes: A Multiple Hospital Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinternmed.2008.520
- The paper
- Amarasingham, R., Plantinga, L., Diener-West, M., Gaskin, D. J., & Powe, N. R. (2009). Clinical Information Technologies and Inpatient Outcomes: A Multiple Hospital Study. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2008.520
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.