Cited by 28Electronic Health Records SystemsMedical Coding and Health InformationNursing Diagnosis and Documentation

Electronic Medical Records Are Not Associated With Improved Documentation in Community Primary Care Practices

Open access
Hahn, Karissa A., Ohman-Strickland, Pamela A., Cohen, Deborah J., Piasecki, Alicja K., Crosson, Jesse C., Clark, Elizabeth C., Crabtree, Benjamin F.·2011·American Journal of Medical Quality

Abstract

The adoption of electronic medical records (EMRs) in ambulatory settings has been widely recommended. It is hoped that EMRs will improve care; however, little is known about the effect of EMR use on care quality in this setting. This study compares EMR versus paper medical record documentation of basic health history and preventive service indicators in 47 community-based practices. Differences in practice-level documentation rates between practices that did and did not use an EMR were examined using the Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test and robust regression, adjusting for practice-level covariates. Frequency of documentation of health history and preventive service indicator items were similar in the 2 groups of practices. Although EMRs provide the capacity for more robust record keeping, the community-based practices here do not use EMRs to their full capacity. EMR usage does not guarantee more systematic record keeping and thus may not lead to improved quality in the community practice setting.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1062860610392365

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hahn, K. A., Ohman-Strickland, P. A., Cohen, D. J., Piasecki, A. K., Crosson, J. C., Clark, E. C., & Crabtree, B. F.
Affiliations
  • University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (US)
  • University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Somerset, NJ
  • Rutgers Cancer Institute (US)
Venue
American Journal of Medical Quality
Published
2011-01-25
Volume
26
Issue
4
Pages
272-277
ISSN
  • 1062-8606 (ISSN-L)
  • 1555-824X
OpenAlex
W2158157334
Cited by
28
References
24
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 1
FWCI
7.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Medical Quality (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01-HL70800, R01HL070800)
  • National Cancer Institute (K05CA140237)
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, paper medical records, clinical documentation, primary care practices, community-based practice, quality of care, outpatient care
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Community Health Centers, Documentation, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Primary Health Care, Statistics, Nonparametric, Young Adult, 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