Enabling Quality: Electronic Health Record Adoption and Meaningful Use Readiness in Federally Funded Health Centers

Innovative Power of Health Care Organisations Affects IT Adoption: A bi-National Health IT Benchmark Comparing Austria and Germany

Multinational health IT benchmarks foster cross-country learning and have been employed at various levels, e.g. OECD and Nordic countries. A bi-national benchmark study conducted in 2007 revealed a significantly higher adoption of health IT in Austria compared to Germany, two countries with comparable healthcare systems. We now investigated whether these differences still persisted. We further studied whether these differences were associated with hospital intrinsic factors, i.e. the innovative power of the organisation and hospital demographics. We thus performed a survey to measure the "perceived IT availability" and the "innovative power of the hospital" of 464 German and 70 Austrian hospitals. The survey was based on a questionnaire with 52 items and was given to the directors of nursing in 2013/2014. Our findings confirmed a significantly greater IT availability in Austria than in Germany. This was visible in the aggregated IT adoption composite score "IT function" as well as in the IT adoption for the individual functions "nursing documentation" (OR = 5.98), "intensive care unit (ICU) documentation" (OR = 2.49), "medication administration documentation" (OR = 2.48), "electronic archive" (OR = 2.27) and "medication" (OR = 2.16). "Innovative power" was the strongest factor to explain the variance of the composite score "IT function". It was effective in hospitals of both countries but significantly more effective in Austria than in Germany. "Hospital size" and "hospital system affiliation" were also significantly associated with the composite score "IT function", but they did not differ between the countries. These findings can be partly associated with the national characteristics. Indicators point to a more favourable financial situation in Austrian hospitals; we thus argue that Austrian hospitals may possess a larger degree of financial freedom to be innovative and to act accordingly. This study is the first to empirically demonstrate the effect of "innovative power" in hospitals on health IT adoption in a bi-national health IT benchmark. We recommend directly including the financial situation into future regression models. On a political level, measures to stimulate the "innovative power" of hospitals should be considered to increase the digitalisation of healthcare.

Barriers to Electronic Health Record Adoption: a Systematic Literature Review

Federal efforts and local initiatives to increase adoption and use of electronic health records (EHRs) continue, particularly since the enactment of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act. Roughly one in four hospitals not adopted even a basic EHR system. A review of the barriers may help in understanding the factors deterring certain healthcare organizations from implementation. We wanted to assemble an updated and comprehensive list of adoption barriers of EHR systems in the United States. Authors searched CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar, and accepted only articles relevant to our primary objective. Reviewers independently assessed the works highlighted by our search and selected several for review. Through multiple consensus meetings, authors tapered articles to a final selection most germane to the topic (n = 27). Each article was thoroughly examined by multiple authors in order to achieve greater validity. Authors identified 39 barriers to EHR adoption within the literature selected for the review. These barriers appeared 125 times in the literature; the most frequently mentioned barriers were regarding cost, technical concerns, technical support, and resistance to change. Despite federal and local incentives, the initial cost of adopting an EHR is a common existing barrier. The other most commonly mentioned barriers include technical support, technical concerns, and maintenance/ongoing costs. Policy makers should consider incentives that continue to reduce implementation cost, possibly aimed more directly at organizations that are known to have lower adoption rates, such as small hospitals in rural areas.

Cigarette Smoking, Desire to Quit, and Tobacco-Related Counseling Among Patients at Adult Health Centers

Objectives. We determined cigarette smoking prevalence, desire to quit, and tobacco-related counseling among a national sample of patients at health centers. Methods. Data came from the 2009 Health Center Patient Survey and the 2009 National Health Interview Survey. The analytic sample included 3949 adult patients at health centers and 27 731 US adults. Results. Thirty-one percent of health center patients were current smokers, compared with 21% of US adults in general. Among currently smoking health center patients, 83% desired to quit and 68% received tobacco counseling. In multivariable models, patients had higher adjusted odds of wanting to quit if they had indications of severe mental illness (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 3.26; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.19, 8.97) and lower odds if they had health insurance (AOR = 0.43; 95% CI = 0.22, 0.86). Patients had higher odds of receiving counseling if they had 2 or more chronic conditions (AOR = 2.05; 95% CI = 1.11, 3.78) and lower odds if they were Hispanic (AOR = 0.57; 95% CI = 0.34, 0.96). Conclusions. Cigarette smoking prevalence is substantially higher among patients at health centers than US adults in general. However, most smokers at health centers desire to quit. Continued efforts are warranted to reduce tobacco use in this vulnerable group.

Reducing CKD risks among vulnerable populations in primary care

Ethnic/racial and socioeconomic status disparities in the health-care and clinical outcomes of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are pervasive. The vast majority of care to decrease incidence of CKD risk and progression occurs in primary care settings. High-quality primary care, therefore, represents a key strategy through which disparities in the incidence and progression of CKD may be eliminated. The Chronic Care Model provides a framework for the delivery of high-quality primary care for chronic diseases, and it is frequently used to guide health-care quality improvement initiatives. Evidence suggests that Chronic Care Model constructs, including provider and organizational quality improvement initiatives focused on team approaches to chronic care (eg, case management, community health workers), are effective in modifying patients' CKD risks among ethnic minority and low-income patients. Other Chronic Care Model constructs, including clinical information systems (eg, disease registries), decision support interventions, and the provision of patient-centered care have been shown to improve processes related to CKD care but with limited and/or mixed effects on patient outcomes. Few studies have examined the effect of these approaches on reducing disparities. Research is needed to examine the effectiveness of these strategies to eliminate CKD disparities among vulnerable populations.

Evaluating the Reliability of EHR-Generated Clinical Outcomes Reports: A Case Study

Introduction:

Quality incentive programs, such as Meaningful Use, operate under the assumption that clinical quality measures can be reliably extracted from EHRs. Safety Net providers, particularly Federally Qualified Health Centers and Look-Alikes, tend to be high adopters of EHRs; however, recent reports have shown that only about 9% of FQHCs and Look-Alikes were demonstrating meaningful use as of 2013. Our experience working with the Crescent City Beacon Community (CCBC) found that many health centers relied on chart audits to report quality measures as opposed to electronically generating reports directly from their EHRs due to distrust in the data. This paper describes a step-by-step process for improving the reliability of data extracted from EHRs to increase reliability of quality measure reports, to support quality improvement, and to achieve alignment with national clinical quality reporting requirements.

Background:

Lack of standardization in data capture and reporting within EHRs drives distrust in EHR-reported data. Practices or communities attempting to achieve standardization may look to CCBC’s experience for guidance on where to start and the level of resources required in order to execute a data standardization project. During the time of this data standardization project, CCBC was launching an HIE. Lack of trust in EHR data was a driver for distrust in the HIE data.

Methods:

We present a case study where a five-step process was used to harmonize measures, reduce data errors, and increase trust in EHR clinical outcomes reports among a community of Safety Net providers using a common EHR. Primary outcomes were the incidence of reporting errors and the potential effect of error types on quality measure percentages. The activities and level of resources required to achieve these results were also documented by the CCBC program.

Findings:

Implementation of a community-wide data reporting project resulted in measure harmonization, reduced reporting burden, and error reduction in EHR-generated clinical outcomes reporting across participating clinics over a nine-month period. Increased accuracy of clinical outcomes reports provided physicians and clinical care teams with better information to guide their decision-making around quality improvement planning.

Discussion:

A number of challenges exist to achieving reliable population level quality reporting from EHRs at the practice, vendor, and community levels. Our experience demonstrates that quality measure reporting from EHRs is not a straightforward process, and it requires time and close collaboration between clinics and vendors to improve reliability of reports. Our experience found that practices valued the opportunity and step-wise process to validate their data locally (out of their EHRs) prior to reporting out of the HIE.

Conclusion and Next Steps:

Communities can achieve higher levels of confidence in quality measure reporting at the population level by establishing collaborative user groups that work with EHR vendors as partners and use technical assistance to build relationships and trust in EHR-generated reports. While this paper describes the first phase of our work around improving standardization and reliability of EHR reports, vendors should continue to explore modifications for improving data capture (at the front-end) via standardized data entry templates.