Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Apr 1;4(4):e217476.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.7476.

Assessment of Variation in Electronic Health Record Capabilities and Reported Clinical Quality Performance in Ambulatory Care Clinics, 2014-2017

Affiliations

Assessment of Variation in Electronic Health Record Capabilities and Reported Clinical Quality Performance in Ambulatory Care Clinics, 2014-2017

Paul G Shekelle et al. JAMA Netw Open. .

Abstract

Importance: Electronic health records (EHRs) are widely promoted to improve the quality of health care, but information about the association of multifunctional EHRs with broad measures of quality in ambulatory settings is scarce.

Objective: To assess the association between EHRs with different degrees of capabilities and publicly reported ambulatory quality measures in at least 3 clinical domains of care.

Design, setting, and participants: This cross-sectional and longitudinal study was conducted using survey responses from 1141 ambulatory clinics in Minnesota, Washington, and Wisconsin affiliated with a health system that responded to the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society Annual Survey and reported performance measures in 2014 to 2017. Statistical analysis was performed from July 10, 2019, through February 26, 2021.

Main outcomes and measures: A composite measure of EHR capability that considered 50 EHR capabilities in 7 functional domains, grouped into the following ordered categories: no functional EHR, EHR underuser, EHR, neither underuser or superuser, EHR superuser; as well as a standardized composite of ambulatory clinical performance measures that included 3 to 25 individual measures (median, 13 individual measures).

Results: In 2014, 381 of 746 clinics (51%) were EHR superusers; this proportion increased in each subsequent year (457 of 846 clinics [54%] in 2015, 510 of 881 clinics [58%] in 2016, and 566 of 932 clinics [61%] in 2017). In each cross-sectional analysis year, EHR superusers had better clinical quality performance than other clinics (adjusted difference in score: 0.39 [95% CI, 0.12-0.65] in 2014; 0.29 [95% CI, -0.01 to 0.59] in 2015; 0.26 [95% CI, -0.05 to 0.56] in 2016; and 0.20 [95% CI, -0.04 to 0.45] in 2017). This difference in scores translates into an approximately 9% difference in a clinic's rank order in clinical quality. In longitudinal analyses, clinics that progressed to EHR superuser status had only slightly better gains in clinical quality between 2014 and 2017 compared with the gains in clinical quality of clinics that were static in terms of their EHR status (0.10 [95% CI, -0.13 to 0.32]). In an exploratory analysis, different types of EHR capability progressions had different degrees of associated improvements in ambulatory clinical quality (eg, progression from no functional EHR to a status short of superuser, 0.06 [95% CI, -0.40 to 0.52]; progression from EHR underuser to EHR superuser, 0.18 [95% CI, -0.14 to 0.50]).

Conclusions and relevance: Between 2014 and 2017, ambulatory clinics in Minnesota, Washington, and Wisconsin with EHRs having greater capabilities had better composite measures of clinical quality than other clinics, but clinics that gained EHR capabilities during this time had smaller increases in clinical quality that were not statistically significant.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Drs Shekelle, Agniel, Shi, Fischer, Rudin, Scanlon, and Damberg, Messrs Pane and Totten, and Mss Haas and Lai reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, et al. . The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(26):2635-2645. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa022615 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Levine DM, Linder JA, Landon BE. The quality of outpatient care delivered to adults in the United States, 2002 to 2013. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(12):1778-1790. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.6217 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ahluwalia SC, Damberg CL, Haas A, Shekelle PG. How are medical groups identified as high-performing? the effect of different approaches to classification of performance. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):500. doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4293-9 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jones SS, Rudin RS, Perry T, Shekelle PG. Health information technology: an updated systematic review with a focus on meaningful use. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(1):48-54. doi:10.7326/M13-1531 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Linder JA, Ma J, Bates DW, Middleton B, Stafford RS. Electronic health record use and the quality of ambulatory care in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(13):1400-1405. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.13.1400 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types