Association of Electronic Health Record Use Above Meaningful Use Thresholds With Hospital Quality and Safety Outcomes

Intersectoral cooperation between university hospitals and physicians in private practice in Germany- where the potential for optimization lies

BACKGROUND

Intersectoral cooperation between physicians in private practice and hospitals is highly relevant for ensuring the quality of medical care. However, the experiences and potential for optimization at this interface from the perspective of physicians in private practice have not yet been systematically investigated. The aim of this questionnaire survey was to record participants' experiences with regard to cooperation with university hospitals and to identify the potential for optimizing intersectoral cooperation.

METHODS

We performed a prospective cross-sectional study using an online survey among practising physicians of all disciplines offering ambulatory care in Germany. The link to a 41-item questionnaire was sent via mail using a commercial mail distributor in which 1095 practising physicians participated. Baseline statistics were performed with SurveyMonkey and Excel.

RESULTS

A total of 70.6%/722 of the responding physicians in private practice rated cooperation with university hospitals as satisfactory. Satisfaction with the quality of treatment was confirmed by 87.2%/956 of the physicians. The subjectively perceived complication rate in patient care was assessed as rare (80.9%/886). However, the median waiting time for patients in the inpatient discharge letter was 4 weeks. The accessibility of medical contact persons was rated as rather difficult by 52.6%/577 of the physicians. A total of 48.6%/629 of the participants considered better communication as an equal partner to be an important potential for optimization. Likewise, 65.2%/714 participants wished for closer cooperation in pre- and/or post inpatient care.

CONCLUSION

The following optimization potentials were identified: timely discharge letters, clear online presentations of clinical contacts, improved accessibility by telephone, introduction or further development of a referral portal, regular intersectoral training and/or "get-togethers", regular surveys of general practitioners and implementation of resulting measures, further development of cross-sectoral communication channels and strengthening of hospital IT.

Copy-Pasting in Patients' Electronic Medical Records (EMRs): Use Judiciously and With Caution

An electronic medical record (EMR) is an electronic, comprehensive, and up-to-date compilation of a patient's medical history and information stored in a secure digital format. It provides real-time access to patient data, enabling healthcare providers to make informed decisions quickly and accurately. EMR systems streamline a patient's healthcare journey and enable shared care across the medical practice. By providing a comprehensive view of a patient's medical history, EMRs can be invaluable tools for physicians and healthcare providers, allowing them to collaborate more effectively and provide better care. Additionally, EMRs can help reduce paperwork, improve accuracy, and increase efficiency, ultimately leading to improved patient outcomes. The true potential of EMR systems can be realized when they are used in conjunction with evidence-based medicine methodologies, quality improvement initiatives, and team-based care. This combination of technologies and practices can revolutionize healthcare delivery, improving patient outcomes, greater efficiency, and cost savings. "Copy-pasting" is an essential feature of EMR systems, with physicians relying on it for up to 35.7% of their workflow. By leveraging the copy-pasting feature of their EMR system, physicians can ensure that their data capture is accurate and timely, leading to better patient care. Copy-pasting can be a valuable tool for physicians, saving time and allowing them to focus on practical clinical issues. However, it is essential to note that while most clinicians copy-paste, 25% of them believe it can lead to a high frequency of medical errors, with the potential for a significant number of errors being attributed to this practice. Therefore, physicians must exercise caution when copy-pasting and take the necessary steps to ensure accuracy and reduce the risk of errors. Copy-pasting can cause severe adverse patient events by introducing new inaccuracies, rapidly spreading inaccurate or outdated information, leading to discordant notes, and creating long notes that mask essential clinical information. Despite these risks, copy-pasting has become widely used in EMRs. Additionally, copy-pasting can reduce the time spent on documentation, allowing healthcare providers to focus more on patient care. Inappropriate copy-pasting can have serious consequences, such as compromising data integrity, endangering patient safety, increasing costs, and even leading to fraudulent malpractice claims. In conclusion, copy-pasting can be helpful for healthcare professionals, but it must be used cautiously. Proper education and safeguards should be implemented to ensure accuracy and up-to-date patient data. Additionally, healthcare professionals should be aware of the legal implications of copy-pasting, as it may be considered a form of medical malpractice. With the proper precautions, copy-pasting can be a safe and efficient way to save time and reduce errors in patient records.

Evaluating the costs and consequences of computerized clinical decision support systems in hospitals: a scoping review and recommendations for future practice

OBJECTIVE

Sustainable investment in computerized decision support systems (CDSS) requires robust evaluation of their economic impacts compared with current clinical workflows. We reviewed current approaches used to evaluate the costs and consequences of CDSS in hospital settings and presented recommendations to improve the generalizability of future evaluations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A scoping review of peer-reviewed research articles published since 2010. Searches were completed in the PubMed, Ovid Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases (last searched February 14, 2023). All studies reported the costs and consequences of a CDSS-based intervention compared with current hospital workflows. Findings were summarized using narrative synthesis. Individual studies were further appraised against the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation and Reporting (CHEERS) 2022 checklist.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies published since 2010 were included. Studies evaluated CDSS for adverse event surveillance (5 studies), antimicrobial stewardship (4 studies), blood product management (8 studies), laboratory testing (7 studies), and medication safety (5 studies). All studies evaluated costs from a hospital perspective but varied based on the valuation of resources affected by CDSS implementation, and the measurement of consequences. We recommend future studies follow guidance from the CHEERS checklist; use study designs that adjust for confounders; consider both the costs of CDSS implementation and adherence; evaluate consequences that are directly or indirectly affected by CDSS-initiated behavior change; examine the impacts of uncertainty and differences in outcomes across patient subgroups.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Improving consistency in the conduct and reporting of evaluations will enable detailed comparisons between promising initiatives, and their subsequent uptake by decision-makers.

The Impact of Meaningful Use and Electronic Health Records on Hospital Patient Safety

The HITECH Act aimed to leverage Electronic Health Records (EHRs) to improve efficiency, quality, and patient safety. Patient safety and EHR use have been understudied, making it difficult to determine if EHRs improve patient safety. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of EHRs and attesting to Meaningful Use (MU) on Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs). A multivariate regression analysis was performed using a generalized linear model method to examine the impact of EHR use on PSIs. Fully implemented EHRs not attesting to MU had a positive impact on three PSIs, and hospitals that attested to MU had a positive impact on two. Attesting to MU or having a fully implemented EHR were not drivers of PSI-90 composite score, suggesting that hospitals may not see significant differences in patient safety with the use of EHR systems as hospitals move towards pay-for-performance models. Policy and practice may want to focus on defining metrics and PSIs that are highly preventable to avoid penalizing hospitals through reimbursement, and work toward adopting advanced analytics to better leverage EHR data. These findings will assist hospital leaders to find strategies to better leverage EHRs, rather than relying on achieving benchmarks of MU objectives.

The Influence of the Electronic Health Record on Achieving Equity and Eliminating Health Disparities for Children

The electronic health record (EHR) has been heralded as a transformative approach to modernizing health care and advancing health equity. Access to the EHR can facilitate shared clinical decision-making and improved communication with patients, families, and among health care providers. Recent legislative and regulatory efforts have been passed to increase the transparency as well as the initiatives to increase the meaningful use of the EHR. Yet despite these well-intended efforts, challenges to addressing health equity through the EHR persist. This article reviews three distinct challenges to addressing health equity related to the EHR. We discuss (1) both the implicit and explicit bias that exist in EHR documentation, (2) the gaps that remain between screening for social determinants of health and the effective inclusion and billing of that screening into the EHR, and (3) the disparities that exist with the use of patient portals. Addressing these three areas will enhance the opportunities to advance health equity through the use of the EHR and bring us one step closer to eliminating health disparities in pediatric health care. [Pediatr Ann. 2022;51(3):e112-e117.].

Restricted use of copy and paste in electronic health records potentially improves healthcare quality

ABSTRACT

The copy-and-paste feature is commonly used for clinical documentation, and a policy is needed to reduce overdocumentation. We aimed to determine if the restricted use of copy and paste by doctors could improve inpatient healthcare quality.Clinical documentation in an inpatient dataset compiled from 2016 to 2018 was used. Copied-and-pasted text was detected in word templates using natural language programming with a threshold of 70%. The prevalence of copying and pasting after the policy introduction was accessed by segmented regression for trend analysis. The rate of readmission for the same disease within 14 days was assessed to evaluate inpatient healthcare quality, and the completion of discharge summary notes within 3 days was assessed to determine the timeliness of note completion. The relationships between these factors were used cross-correlation to detect lag effect. Poisson regression was performed to identify the relative effect of the copy and paste restriction policy on the 14-day readmission rate or the discharge note completion rate within 3 days.The prevalence of copying and pasting initially decreased, then increased, and then flatly decreased. The cross-correlation results showed a significant correlation between the prevalence of copied-and-pasted text and the 14-day readmission rate (P < .001) and a relative risk of 1.105 (P < .005), with a one-month lag. The discharge note completion rate initially decreased and not affected long term after restriction policy.Appropriate policies to restrict the use of copying and pasting can lead to improvements in inpatient healthcare quality. Prospective research with cost analysis is needed.