» Articles » PMID: 20703574

Assessing Differences Between Physicians' Realized and Anticipated Gains from Electronic Health Record Adoption

Overview
Journal J Med Syst
Date 2010 Aug 13
PMID 20703574
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Return on investment (ROI) concerns related to Electronic Health Records (EHRs) are a major barrier to the technology's adoption. Physicians generally rely upon early adopters to vet new technologies prior to putting them into widespread use. Therefore, early adopters' experiences with EHRs play a major role in determining future adoption patterns. The paper's purposes are: (1) to map the EHR value streams that define the ROI calculation; and (2) to compare Current Users' and Intended Adopters' perceived value streams to identify similarities, differences and governing constructs. Primary data was collected by the Texas Medical Association, which surveyed 1,772 physicians on their use and perceptions of practice gains from EHR adoption. Using Bayesian Belief Network Modeling, value streams are constructed for both current EHR users and Intended Adopters. Current Users and Intended Adopters differ significantly in their perceptions of the EHR value stream. Intended Adopters' value stream displays complex relationships among the potential gains compared to the simpler, linear relationship that Current Users identified. The Current Users identify "Reduced Medical Records Costs" as the gain that governs the value stream while Intended Adopters believe "Reduced Charge Capture Costs" define the value stream's starting point. Current Users' versus Intended Adopters' assessments of EHR benefits differ significantly and qualitatively from one another.

Citing Articles

Value of Electronic Health Records Measured Using Financial and Clinical Outcomes: Quantitative Study.

Modi S, Feldman S, Berner E, Schooley B, Johnston A JMIR Med Inform. 2024; 12:e52524.

PMID: 38265848 PMC: 10851116. DOI: 10.2196/52524.


The Value of Electronic Health Records Since the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act: Systematic Review.

Modi S, Feldman S JMIR Med Inform. 2022; 10(9):e37283.

PMID: 36166286 PMC: 9555331. DOI: 10.2196/37283.


Implementation of Electronic Health Records and Entrepreneurial Strategic Orientation in Substance Use Disorder Treatment Organizations.

Fields D, Riesenmy K, Blum T, Roman P J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2015; 76(6):942-51.

PMID: 26562603 PMC: 4712663. DOI: 10.15288/jsad.2015.76.942.


EHR adopters vs. non-adopters: Impacts of, barriers to, and federal initiatives for EHR adoption.

Jamoom E, Patel V, Furukawa M, King J Healthc (Amst). 2015; 2(1):33-9.

PMID: 26250087 PMC: 4878018. DOI: 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2013.12.004.


Development and implementation of an electronic health record generated surgical handoff and rounding tool.

Raval M, Rust L, Thakkar R, Kurtovic K, Nwomeh B, Besner G J Med Syst. 2015; 39(2):8.

PMID: 25631842 DOI: 10.1007/s10916-015-0202-x.


References
1.
Lang R . The wow factor: the best HCI wins every time. J Healthc Inf Manag. 2006; 20(1):2-4. View

2.
Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M . The value of implementation and the value of information: combined and uneven development. Med Decis Making. 2008; 28(1):21-32. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07308751. View

3.
Levinger M . How much is that EHR in the window? How to build a cost model that gives the full picture. MGMA Connex. 2008; 8(9):48-51, 1. View

4.
Andreassen H, Trondsen M, Kummervold P, Gammon D, Hjortdahl P . Patients who use e-mediated communication with their doctor: new constructions of trust in the patient-doctor relationship. Qual Health Res. 2006; 16(2):238-48. DOI: 10.1177/1049732305284667. View

5.
Lo H, Newmark L, Yoon C, Volk L, Carlson V, Kittler A . Electronic health records in specialty care: a time-motion study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007; 14(5):609-15. PMC: 1975804. DOI: 10.1197/jamia.M2318. View