The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Clinical Benefits of Electronic Health Record Use: National Findings
Open accessAbstract
Objective: To assess whether physicians' reported electronic health record (EHR) use provides clinical benefits and whether benefits depend on using an EHR meeting Meaningful Use criteria or length of EHR experience. Data Source: The 2011 Physician Workflow study, representative of U.S. office‐based physicians. Study Design: Cross‐sectional data were used to examine the association of EHR use with enhanced patient care overall and nine specific clinical benefits. Principal Findings: Most physicians with EHR s reported EHR use enhanced patient care overall (78 percent), helped them access a patient's chart remotely (81 percent), and alerted them to a potential medication error (65 percent) and critical lab values (62 percent). Between 30 and 50 percent of physicians reported that EHR use was associated with clinical benefits related to providing recommended care, ordering appropriate tests, and facilitating patient communication. Using EHR s that met Meaningful Use criteria and having 2 or more years of EHR experience were independently associated with reported benefits. Physicians with EHR s meeting Meaningful Use criteria and longer EHR experience were most likely to report benefits across all 10 measures. Conclusions: Physicians reported EHR use enhanced patient care overall. Clinical benefits were most likely to be reported by physicians using EHR s meeting Meaningful Use criteria and longer EHR experience.
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
The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care
Holden, R. J., & Karsh, B.-T. (2010) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2009.07.002 · Cited by 2,669
The “Meaningful Use” Regulation for Electronic Health Records
Blumenthal, D., & Tavenner, M. (2010) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp1006114 · Cited by 2,059
Electronic health records in ambulatory care—a national survey of physicians
DesRoches, C. M., Campbell, E. G., Rao, S. R., Donelan, K., Ferris, T. G., Jha, A., Kaushal, R., Levy, D. E., Rosenbaum, S., Shields, A. E., et al. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa0802005 · Cited by 1,111
Interaction Terms in Nonlinear Models
Karaca‐Mandic, P., Norton, E. C., & Dowd, B. (2012) · Health Services Research · doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01314.x · Cited by 722
McGinn, C. A., Grenier, S., Duplantie, J., Shaw, N., Sicotte, C., Mathieu, L., Leduc, Y., Légaré, F., & Gagnon, M.-P. (2011) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-9-46 · Cited by 393
Holroyd-Leduc, J. M., Lorenzetti, D., Straus, S. E., Sykes, L., & Quan, H. (2011) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2010-000019 · Cited by 227
Physicians and Electronic Health Records: A Statewide Survey
Simon, S. R. (2007) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.167.5.507 · Cited by 183
Bryan, C., & Boren, S. (2008) · Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics · doi:10.14236/jhi.v16i2.679 · Cited by 170
Physician adoption of electronic health record systems: United States, 2011.
Jamoom, E. W., Beatty, P., Bercovitz, A., Woodwell, D. A., Palso, K., & Rechtsteiner, E. A. (2012) · PubMed · Cited by 169
Self-citationHolden, R. J. (2010) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.12.003 · Cited by 163
Cited by
Shanafelt, T. D., Dyrbye, L. N., Sinsky, C., Hasan, O., Satele, D., Sloan, J., & West, C. P. (2016) · Mayo Clinic Proceedings · doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.05.007 · Cited by 1,086
Federated learning for healthcare: Systematic review and architecture proposal
Antunes, R. S., André da Costa, C., Küderle, A., Yari, I. A., & Eskofier, B. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3501813 · Cited by 595
Tsai, C. H., Eghdam, A., Davoody, N., Wright, G., Flowerday, S., & Koch, S. (2020) · Life · doi:10.3390/life10120327 · Cited by 305
“One study found that the majority of responding physicians (81%) reported improved remote access to patient records [46].”
BackgroundInfluentialGidwani, R., Nguyen, C., Kofoed, A., Carragee, C., Rydel, T., Nelligan, I., Sattler, A., Mahoney, M., & Lin, S. (2017) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.2122 · Cited by 202
Identifying electronic health record usability and safety challenges in pediatric settings
Ratwani, R. M., Savage, E., Will, A., Fong, A., Karavite, D., Muthu, N., Rivera, A. J., Gibson, C., Asmonga, D., Moscovitch, B., et al. (2018) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0699 · Cited by 163
Metadata
- Authors
- King, J., Patel, V., Jamoom, E. W., & Furukawa, M. F.
- Venue
- Health Services Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-12-21
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 1pt2
- Pages
- 392-404
- ISSN
- 0017-9124 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-6773
- OpenAlex
- W2037591813
- Cited by
- 273
- References
- 20
- FWCI
- 29.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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 Benefits of Electronic Health Record Use: National Findings. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1475-6773.12135
- The paper
- King, J., Patel, V., Jamoom, E. W., & Furukawa, M. F. (2014). Clinical Benefits of Electronic Health Record Use: National Findings. Health Services Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12135
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.
