Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 866

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Physicians’ Use Of Electronic Medical Records: Barriers And Solutions

Miller, Robert H., Sim, Ida·2004·Health Affairs

Abstract

The electronic medical record (EMR) is an enabling technology that allows physician practices to pursue more powerful quality improvement programs than is possible with paper-based records. However, achieving quality improvement through EMR use is neither low-cost nor easy. Based on a qualitative study of physician practices that had implemented an EMR, we found that quality improvement depends heavily on physicians' use of the EMR-and not paper-for most of their daily tasks. We identified key barriers to physicians' use of EMRs. We then suggest policy interventions to overcome these barriers, including providing work/practice support systems, improving electronic clinical data exchange, and providing financial rewards for quality improvement.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1377/hlthaff.23.2.116

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.

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.

Citations

Cited by

See all 866

Metadata

Authors
Miller, R. H., & Sim, I.
Venue
Health Affairs
Published
2004-03
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
116-126
ISSN
  • 0278-2715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1544-5208
OpenAlex
W2029966033
Cited by
866
References
0
FWCI
85.26
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: Physicians’ Use Of Electronic Medical Records: Barriers And Solutions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1377/hlthaff.23.2.116
The paper
Miller, R. H., & Sim, I. (2004). Physicians’ Use Of Electronic Medical Records: Barriers And Solutions. Health Affairs. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.23.2.116

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.