Estimates of Electronic Medical Records in U.S. Emergency Departments

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Estimates of Electronic Medical Records in U.S. Emergency Departments

Citable link to this page

 

 
Title: Estimates of Electronic Medical Records in U.S. Emergency Departments
Author: Geisler, Benjamin P.; Schuur, Jeremiah D; Pallin, Daniel J.

Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.

Citation: Geisler, Benjamin P., Jeremiah D. Schuur, and Daniel J. Pallin. 2010. Estimates of electronic medical records in U.S. emergency departments. PLoS ONE 5(2): e9274.
Full Text & Related Files:
Abstract: Background: Policymakers advocate universal electronic medical records (EMRs) and propose incentives for “meaningful use” of EMRs. Though emergency departments (EDs) are particularly sensitive to the benefits and unintended consequences of EMR adoption, surveillance has been limited. We analyze data from a nationally representative sample of US EDs to ascertain the adoption of various EMR functionalities. Methodology/Principal: Findings We analyzed data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, after pooling data from 2005 and 2006, reporting proportions with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). In addition to reporting adoption of various EMR functionalities, we used logistic regression to ascertain patient and hospital characteristics predicting “meaningful use,” defined as a “basic” system (managing demographic information, computerized provider order entry, and lab and imaging results). We found that 46% (95% CI 39–53%) of US EDs reported having adopted EMRs. Computerized provider order entry was present in 21% (95% CI 16–27%), and only 15% (95% CI 10–20%) had warnings for drug interactions or contraindications. The “basic” definition of “meaningful use” was met by 17% (95% CI 13–21%) of EDs. Rural EDs were substantially less likely to have a “basic” EMR system than urban EDs (odds ratio 0.19, 95% CI 0.06–0.57, p = 0.003), and Midwestern (odds ratio 0.37, 95% CI 0.16–0.84, p = 0.018) and Southern (odds ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.26–0.84, p = 0.011) EDs were substantially less likely than Northeastern EDs to have a “basic” system. Conclusions/Significance: EMRs are becoming more prevalent in US EDs, though only a minority use EMRs in a “meaningful” way, no matter how “meaningful” is defined. Rural EDs are less likely to have an EMR than metropolitan EDs, and Midwestern and Southern EDs are less likely to have an EMR than Northeastern EDs. We discuss the nuances of how to define “meaningful use,” and the importance of considering not only adoption, but also full implementation and consequences.
Published Version: doi://10.1371/journal.pone.0009274
Other Sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2822862/pdf/
Terms of Use: This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA
Citable link to this page: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:10198946
Downloads of this work:

Show full Dublin Core record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

 
 

Search DASH


Advanced Search
 
 

Submitters