Using a health information technology survey to explore the availability of addiction treatment data in the electronic health records: A National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network study

Adoption of Electronic Health Record Among Substance Use Disorder Treatment Programs: Nationwide Cross-Sectional Survey Study

BACKGROUND

Electronic health record (EHR) systems have been shown to be associated with improvements in care processes, quality of care, and patient outcomes. EHR also has a crucial role in the delivery of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment and is considered important for addressing SUD crises, including the opioid epidemic. However, little is known about the adoption of EHR in SUD treatment programs or the organizational-level factors associated with the adoption of EHR in SUD treatment.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the adoption of EHR in SUD programs, with a focus on changes in adoption from 2014 to 2017, and identified organizational-level factors associated with EHR adoption.

METHODS

We used data from the 2014 and 2017 National Drug Abuse Treatment System Surveys. Our analysis included 1027 SUD programs (531 in 2014 and 496 in 2017). We used chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests for categorical and continuous variables, respectively, to assess changes in EHR adoption, technology use, program, and client characteristics. We also investigated differences in characteristics and barriers to adoption by EHR adoption status (adopted EHR vs had not adopted or were planning to adopt EHR). We then conducted multivariate logistic regressions to examine internal and external factors associated with EHR adoption.

RESULTS

The adoption of EHR increased significantly from 57.6% (306/531) in 2014 to 69.2% (343/496) in 2017 (P<.001), showing that nearly one-third (153/496, 30.8%) of SUD programs had not yet adopted an EHR system by 2017. We identified a significant increase in technology use and ownership by a parent company (P=.01 and P<.001) and a decrease in the percentage of uninsured patients in 2017 (P<.001), compared to 2014. Our analysis further showed significant differences by adoption status for three major barriers to adoption: (1) start-up costs, (2) ongoing financial costs, and (3) privacy or security concerns (P<.001). Programs that used computerized scheduling (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 3.02, 95% CI 2.23-4.09) and billing systems (AOR 2.29, 95% CI 1.62-3.25) were more likely to adopt EHR. Similarly, ownership type, such as private nonprofit (AOR 1.86, 95% CI 1.31-2.65) and public (AOR 2.14, 95% CI 1.27-3.67), or interest in participating in a patient-centered medical home (AOR 1.93, 95% CI 1.29-2.92), were associated with an increased likelihood to adopt EHR. Overall, SUD programs were more likely to adopt an EHR system in 2017 compared to 2014 (AOR 1.44, 95% CI 1.07-1.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlighted that SUD programs may be on track to achieve widespread EHR adoption. However, there is a need for focused strategies, resources, and policies explicitly designed to systematically address barriers and tackle obstacles to expanding the adoption of EHR systems. These efforts must be holistic and address factors at multiple organizational levels.

Impact of Electronic Health Records on Information Practices in Mental Health Contexts: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

The adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) and electronic medical records (EMRs) has been slow in the mental health context, partly because of concerns regarding the collection of sensitive information, the standardization of mental health data, and the risk of negatively affecting therapeutic relationships. However, EHRs and EMRs are increasingly viewed as critical to improving information practices such as the documentation, use, and sharing of information and, more broadly, the quality of care provided.

OBJECTIVE

This paper aims to undertake a scoping review to explore the impact of EHRs on information practices in mental health contexts and also explore how sensitive information, data standardization, and therapeutic relationships are managed when using EHRs in mental health contexts.

METHODS

We considered a scoping review to be the most appropriate method for this review because of the relatively recent uptake of EHRs in mental health contexts. A comprehensive search of electronic databases was conducted with no date restrictions for articles that described the use of EHRs, EMRs, or associated systems in the mental health context. One of the authors reviewed all full texts, with 2 other authors each screening half of the full-text articles. The fourth author mediated the disagreements. Data regarding study characteristics were charted. A narrative and thematic synthesis approach was taken to analyze the included studies' results and address the research questions.

RESULTS

The final review included 40 articles. The included studies were highly heterogeneous with a variety of study designs, objectives, and settings. Several themes and subthemes were identified that explored the impact of EHRs on information practices in the mental health context. EHRs improved the amount of information documented compared with paper. However, mental health-related information was regularly missing from EHRs, especially sensitive information. EHRs introduced more standardized and formalized documentation practices that raised issues because of the focus on narrative information in the mental health context. EHRs were found to disrupt information workflows in the mental health context, especially when they did not include appropriate templates or care plans. Usability issues also contributed to workflow concerns. Managing the documentation of sensitive information in EHRs was problematic; clinicians sometimes watered down sensitive information or chose to keep it in separate records. Concerningly, the included studies rarely involved service user perspectives. Furthermore, many studies provided limited information on the functionality or technical specifications of the EHR being used.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified several areas in which work is needed to ensure that EHRs benefit clinicians and service users in the mental health context. As EHRs are increasingly considered critical for modern health systems, health care decision-makers should consider how EHRs can better reflect the complexity and sensitivity of information practices and workflows in the mental health context.

Recommendations to Inform Substance Use Disorder Data Sharing Research: Scoping Review and Thematic Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Title 42 Code of Federal Regulations Part 2 (42 CFR Part 2 or Part 2) was enacted in 1975 to protect patients receiving treatment for substance use disorders. A scoping review on Part 2 characterized published work.

METHODS

Seven databases were searched. Studies were categorized based on date of publication, primary objectives, methods, and findings. A thematic analysis was conducted using article titles and abstracts.

RESULTS

Of the 36 studies identified, the majority (78%) were opinions or legal reviews, (22%) employed quantitative and/or qualitative methods to study the impact of Part 2, and over half (58%) were published in the past 5 years. Only 8% of studies reported stakeholder involvement in Part 2 studies and no study included patients or patient advocates. No study discussed the efforts to align Part 2 with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act or provided evidence of the benefit of this alignment. Three main themes emerged from the review: care delivery (46.6%), law and ethics (27.6%), and technology (25.9%). There were no studies focusing on stigma and its effect on substance use treatment and Part 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the significance of Part 2, the literature is sparse. It is time to initiate a new era of scholarly research that focuses on the impact of statutes and policies that govern substance use disorder data sharing. Specifically, we recommend research on Part 2 and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act alignment, the effects of Part 2 on patients, as well as providers and other stakeholder perceptions on the regulation.