Institute for Technology Assessment, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2010 Feb 17;5(2):e9274. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009274.
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.
政策制定者提倡普及电子病历(EMR),并提出激励措施以促进 EMR 的“有意义使用”。尽管急诊部门(ED)对 EMR 采用的益处和意外后果特别敏感,但监测工作却很有限。我们分析了来自美国全国代表性急诊样本的数据,以确定各种 EMR 功能的采用情况。
方法/主要发现:我们对 2005 年和 2006 年的数据进行了汇总,然后对来自国家医院门诊医疗调查的数据进行了分析,报告了 95%置信区间(95%CI)的比例。除了报告各种 EMR 功能的采用情况外,我们还使用逻辑回归来确定预测“有意义使用”的患者和医院特征,“有意义使用”定义为“基本”系统(管理人口统计信息、计算机化医嘱录入以及实验室和影像结果)。我们发现,46%(95%CI 39-53%)的美国 ED 报告已采用 EMR。计算机化医嘱录入的使用率为 21%(95%CI 16-27%),仅有 15%(95%CI 10-20%)具有药物相互作用或禁忌症警告。17%(95%CI 13-21%)的 ED 满足“基本”定义的“有意义使用”。与城市 ED 相比,农村 ED 采用“基本”EMR 系统的可能性要低得多(比值比 0.19,95%CI 0.06-0.57,p=0.003),中西部(比值比 0.37,95%CI 0.16-0.84,p=0.018)和南部(比值比 0.47,95%CI 0.26-0.84,p=0.011)的 ED 采用“基本”系统的可能性也明显低于东北部的 ED。
结论/意义:尽管无论如何定义“有意义使用”,只有少数美国 ED 以“有意义”的方式使用 EMR,但 EMR 在急诊中的应用越来越普遍。农村 ED 比城市 ED 更不可能拥有 EMR,中西部和南部 ED 比东北部 ED 更不可能拥有 EMR。我们讨论了如何定义“有意义使用”的细微差别,以及不仅要考虑采用,还要考虑全面实施和后果的重要性。