Cited by 35Electronic Health Records SystemsMedical Coding and Health InformationNursing Diagnosis and Documentation

Perceptions of electronic health record implementation: a statewide survey of physicians in Rhode Island

Wylie, Matthew C., Baier, Rosa R., Gardner, Rebekah L.·2014·The American Journal of Medicine

Abstract

Objectives Although electronic health record use improves healthcare delivery, adoption into clinical practice is incomplete. We sought to identify the extent of adoption in Rhode Island and the characteristics of physicians and electronic health records associated with positive experience. Methods We performed a cross-sectional study of data collected by the Rhode Island Department of Health for the Health Information Technology Survey 2009 to 2013. Survey questions included provider and practice demographics, health record information, and Likert-type scaled questions regarding how electronic health record use affected clinical practice. Results The survey response rate ranged from 50% to 65%, with 62% in 2013. Increasing numbers of physicians in Rhode Island use an electronic health record. In 2013, 81% of physicians used one, and adoption varied by clinical subspecialty. Most providers think that electronic health record use improves billing and quality improvement but has not improved job satisfaction. Physicians with longer and more sophisticated electronic health record use report positive effects of introduction on all aspects of practice examined (P Conclusions We report the largest statewide study of electronic health record adoption to date. We found increasing physician use in Rhode Island, and the extent of adoption varies by subspecialty. Although older physicians are less likely to be positive about electronic health record adoption, longer and more sophisticat…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.06.011

Cites

22 of 22 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 26 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wylie, M. C., Baier, R. R., & Gardner, R. L.
Affiliations
Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
Wylie, Matthew C.
Venue
The American Journal of Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-10
Volume
127
Issue
10
Pages
1010.e21-1010.e27
ISSN
0002-9343 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2089107105
Cited by
35
References
26
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2
FWCI
4.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The American Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Rhode Island's Healthcare Quality Reporting Program
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Keywords
electronic health records, EHR adoption, physician perceptions, job satisfaction, clinical practice, health information technology, EHR vendors, physician age, Rhode Island, billing, quality improvement
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Attitude of Health Personnel, Cross-Sectional Studies, Health Plan Implementation, Humans, Job Satisfaction, Middle Aged, Patient Credit and Collection, Physicians, Quality of Health Care, Rhode Island, Specialization, Time Factors, United States, Health Care Surveys, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Workflow, Electronic Health Records

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