The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Electronic Health Records’ Limited Successes Suggest More Targeted Uses
Abstract
Understanding whether electronic health records, as currently adopted, improve quality and efficiency has important implications for how best to employ the estimated $20 billion in health information technology incentives authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. We examined electronic health record adoption in U.S. hospitals and the relationship to quality and efficiency. Across a large number of metrics examined, the relationships were modest at best and generally lacked statistical or clinical significance. However, the presence of clinical decision support was associated with small quality gains. Our findings suggest that to drive substantial gains in quality and efficiency, simply adopting electronic health records is likely to be insufficient. Instead, policies are needed that encourage the use of electronic health records in ways that will lead to improvements in care.
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
Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data.
Elixhauser, A., Steiner, C., Harris, D. R., & Coffey, R. M. (1998) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199801000-00004 · Cited by 9,921
Bates, D. W. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.15.1311 · Cited by 2,107
Hillestad, R., Bigelow, J., Bower, A., Girosi, F., Meili, R., Scoville, R., & Taylor, R. (2005) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.24.5.1103 · Cited by 1,675
Use of Electronic Health Records in U.S. Hospitals
Jha, A. K., DesRoches, C. M., Campbell, E. G., Donelan, K., Rao, S. R., Ferris, T. G., Shields, A., Rosenbaum, S., & Blumenthal, D. (2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa0900592 · Cited by 1,473
Self-citationHospital 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
Meaningful Use of Health Information Technology in U.S. Hospitals
DesRoches, C. M., & Rosenbaum, S. J. (2010) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmc1000273 · Cited by 15
Self-citation
Cited by
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
The effects of health information technology on the costs and quality of medical care
Agha, L. (2014) · Journal of Health Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2013.12.005 · Cited by 262
Leon, N., Schneider, H., & Daviaud, E. (2012) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-12-123 · Cited by 200
Ben-Assuli, O. (2015) · Health Policy · doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.11.014 · Cited by 175
Mazur, L. M., Mosaly, P. R., Moore, C., Comitz, E., Yu, F., Falchook, A. D., Eblan, M. J., Hoyle, L. M., Tracton, G., Chera, B. S., et al. (2016) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocw016 · Cited by 45
Metadata
- Authors
- DesRoches, C. M., Campbell, E. G., Vogeli, C., Zheng, J., Rao, S. R., Shields, A. E., Donelan, K., Rosenbaum, S., Bristol, S. J., & Jha, A. K.
- Venue
- Health Affairs
- Publisher
- Health Affairs Publishing, LLC
- Published
- 2010-04
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 639-646
- ISSN
- 0278-2715 (ISSN-L)
- 1544-5208
- OpenAlex
- W2129419777
- Cited by
- 212
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 41.96
- 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: Electronic Health Records’ Limited Successes Suggest More Targeted Uses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1377/hlthaff.2009.1086
- The paper
- DesRoches, C. M., Campbell, E. G., Vogeli, C., Zheng, J., Rao, S. R., Shields, A. E., Donelan, K., Rosenbaum, S., Bristol, S. J., & Jha, A. K. (2010). Electronic Health Records’ Limited Successes Suggest More Targeted Uses. Health Affairs. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2009.1086
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.
