ArticlePDF Available

Unintended Consequences of Nationwide Electronic Health Record Adoption: Challenges and Opportunities in the Post-Meaningful Use Era



The U.S. health system has recently achieved widespread adoption of electronic health record (EHR) systems, primarily driven by financial incentives provided by the Meaningful Use program. Although successful in promoting EHR adoption and use, the program, and other contributing factors, also produced important unintended consequences (UCs) with far-reaching implications for the U.S. health system. Based on our own experiences from large health information technology (HIT) adoption projects and a collection of key studies in HIT evaluation, we discuss the most prominent UCs of Meaningful Use: failed expectations; EHR market saturation; innovation vacuum; physician burnout, and data obfuscation. We identify challenges resulting from these UCs and provide recommendations for future research in order to empower the broader medical and informatics communities to realize the full potential of a now digitized health system. We believe that fixing these unanticipated effects will demand efforts from diverse players such as health care providers, administrators, HIT vendors, policy makers, informatics researchers, funding agencies, and outside developers; promotion of new business models; collaboration between academic medical centers and informatics research departments; and improved methods for evaluations of HIT.
Unintended Consequences of Nationwide Electronic Health Record
Adoption: Challenges and Opportunities in the Post-Meaningful
Use Era
Tiago K Colicchio1, PhD, MBA; James J Cimino1, MD; Guilherme Del Fiol2, MD, PhD
1Informatics Institute, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States
2Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
Corresponding Author:
Tiago K Colicchio, PhD, MBA
Informatics Institute
University of Alabama at Birmingham
1900 University Boulevard
Birmingham, AL, 35294
United States
Phone: 1 2059960735
The US health system has recently achieved widespread adoption of electronic health record (EHR) systems, primarily driven
by financial incentives provided by the Meaningful Use (MU) program. Although successful in promoting EHR adoption and
use, the program, and other contributing factors, also produced important unintended consequences (UCs) with far-reaching
implications for the US health system. Based on our own experiences from large health information technology (HIT) adoption
projects and a collection of key studies in HIT evaluation, we discuss the most prominent UCs of MU: failed expectations, EHR
market saturation, innovation vacuum, physician burnout, and data obfuscation. We identify challenges resulting from these UCs
and provide recommendations for future research to empower the broader medical and informatics communities to realize the
full potential of a now digitized health system. We believe that fixing these unanticipated effects will demand efforts from diverse
players such as health care providers, administrators, HIT vendors, policy makers, informatics researchers, funding agencies, and
outside developers; promotion of new business models; collaboration between academic medical centers and informatics research
departments; and improved methods for evaluations of HIT.
(J Med Internet Res 2019;21(5):e13313) doi:10.2196/13313
meaningful use; medical informatics applications; adoption
When humans created the cities to enable surplus food, labor
division, and trade, the city itself generated new modalities of
problems such as disease and violence. The American
sociologist Robert K. Merton (1910-2013) coined the term
unintended consequences (UCs) to describe these antagonistic
elements inherent in any human endeavor [1]. The health care
industry, which in the United States has reached near universal
adoption of electronic health record (EHR) systems, is no
Calls for nationwide adoption of EHRs [2] finally came to
fruition when the US Congress passed the Health Information
Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act
into law in 2009 [3], establishing the Meaningful Use (MU)
program. As a result of MU, EHR adoption among US hospitals
increased an impressive 8-fold in 6 years, and today, 9 in 10
hospitals use a government-certified EHR, and adoption among
office-based physicians is above 80% [4]. However, although
successful in promoting its intended consequences (EHR
adoption and use), the program, and other contributing factors,
also produced important UCs, with effects that range from the
health system level all the way to the point of care level. Many
recent publications have criticized MU and particularly EHRs;
however, little attention has been dedicated to promoting
effective solutions. Although previous articles have elicited
emerging health information technology (HIT) UCs such as
decreased patient-provider interaction, security breaches, and
overdependence on technology [5] and proposed a research
J Med Internet Res 2019 | vol. 21 | iss. 5 | e13313 | p.1
(page number not for citation purposes)
agenda to fixing the EHR [6], such reports were produced during
the MU implementation, and therefore, their conclusions were
made before the US health system had been exposed to the
effects of nationwide EHR adoption. On the basis of our own
experiences from large-scale HIT adoption projects and a
collection of key studies in HIT evaluation, we discuss the most
prominent UCs of MU (Figure 1) and provide recommendations
for future research to empower the broader medical and
informatics communities to realize the full potential of a now
digitized health system.
Figure 1. Unintended consequences of Meaningful Use, their contributing factors, and opportunities for future research from the broadest to the most
specific level. ARRA: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act; EHR: electronic health record; HIT: health information technology; UC: unintended
Unintended Consequence 1: Failed Expectations
Recent systematic reviews have found that most HIT evaluations
published before MU reported predominantly positive outcomes
[7,8]. These outcomes served as the foundation for the MU
program and have produced a hype around HIT. Such a hype
led to a nationwide adoption of commercial EHRs with high
expectations for improving the US health care cost and quality
[9]. However, after 4 years of nationwide EHR adoption, health
care in the United States is still the most expensive and lags
behind in some quality outcomes when compared with other
developed countries [10], which indicates that the expected
benefits of a digital health system have not yet materialized
[11-14]. As the adoption of commercial EHRs increased, new,
unanticipated modalities of problems emerged [5]. The first
systematic review of HIT impact published after MU continued
to find mostly positive results; however, it also reported that
19% of the studies found no significant HIT impact, and the
lack of negative outcomes is likely explained by publication
bias [15].
The same systematic reviews that have reported positive findings
have also reported several mixed results, which leaves
unanswered questions as to the impact of HIT on quality,
productivity, and safety. Furthermore, studies from other
industries demonstrate that IT adoption rarely produces positive
results if not accompanied by complementary factors or
investments [16]. Several internal and external factors have
been identified as potentially affecting care outcomes during
HIT interventions [17], which suggests that previous studies
may have been subjected to similar context-dependent factors,
as they are common to HIT interventions [18,19]. Pre-MU
studies are being criticized for relying on weak research designs
such as short-term pretest-posttests and for the use of a small
set of nonconsensus measurements [8,12,20]. The latter is an
important barrier to the reproducibility of studies [21] and to
the comparison of outcomes across studies [20], which prevents
more comprehensive assessments of HIT impact and produces
questions regarding the strength of the evidence supporting HIT
effectiveness [22]. The lack of consistent evidence resulting
from the use of poorly designed studies indicates that what
others have called positive outcomes [7,8] are in fact putative
outcomes. It has been estimated that without improved research
methods, around 100 hypotheses per year will continue to be
tested without providing any valuable knowledge [23].
J Med Internet Res 2019 | vol. 21 | iss. 5 | e13313 | p.2
(page number not for citation purposes)
With insufficient evidence to support the hype around HIT and
generalizable effects of HIT across care outcomes, settings, and
EHR systems, an important question remains unanswered: was
the over 20-billion-dollar investment in HIT from the America
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) worth it?
The Path Forward
Implementation of a new EHR will inevitably add to the
complexity of the several aspects of care, and as users adapt to
the system, they demand new customizations [24]. These
customizations are often added to updated EHR versions that
demand extensive local testing and an implementation process
almost as complex, risky, and labor intensive as the
implementation of a newly adopted EHR. In such a scenario,
simple pretest-posttest designs are ineffective [25]. A paradigm
shift on the choice of research designs for HIT studies is needed
to produce more longitudinal evaluations able to detect
time-sensitive effects common to HIT interventions [26] and
to assess a large set of measures capable of detecting the diverse
effects of such interventions [11,12]. Furthermore, as HIT
interventions are subject to context-dependent factors,
assessment of potential covariates is of paramount importance,
as demonstrated elsewhere [17]. A better understanding of the
full impact of HIT on the US health system will demand more
comprehensive evaluations that assess a large sample of
agreed-upon measures shared across researchers to allow
comparison of outcomes across studies by future systematic
reviews—and potential meta-analyses. In addition to increasing
our understating of HIT impact on a national scale, such an
approach has the potential to produce compelling evidence to
the need for improving HIT effectiveness and can lead us to a
more realistic assessment of the real value of the ARRA
investment in HIT.
Unintended Consequence 2: Electronic Health Record
Market Saturation
The time frame to implement MU’s certification criteria was
constrained, and the larger EHR vendors more rapidly complied
with the criteria, contributing to an increased adoption of
systems with established market share [27]. In 2017, the top 3
US HIT vendors shared 66% of the EHR market for acute care
hospitals, which includes most large academic medical centers
[28,29]. Given the complexity and high cost involved in
implementing a commercial EHR, health care organizations are
unlikely to change an EHR vendor anytime soon, causing a
saturation of the US EHR market.
The Path Forward
As new, expensive EHR implementations become rarer, EHR
vendors will be forced to find new business models to remain
profitable. This path is evolving through initiatives such as the
Substitutable Medical Applications & Reusable Technologies
(SMART), which coupled with data standards, such as Fast
Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR), is enabling
development of third-party applications seamlessly connected
to commercial EHRs. Such applications have the potential to
replace or augment commercial EHRs’ functionality, in a model
similar to the mobile phone industry [30]. To providers, such
an approach represents an interesting opportunity to expand,
customize, or replace EHR functionality as needed; to EHR
vendors, it represents an opportunity to diversify their products,
solutions, and sources of income. However, the saturation of
the national market has produced a situation analogous to an
oligopoly, and the path to producing new business models is
unclear. Although some vendors seem to be open to the idea of
having external applications connected to their EHR, others
intend to charge providers per FHIR transaction, which will
eventually hamper use of external applications. In addition, the
2 leading US EHR vendors are increasing their global presence
[31], which may help to keep them financially sustainable and
postpone the development of new business models. With an
increased bargaining power of these vendors, the success of
initiatives such as SMART on FHIR may emerge from the
tension between providers’ needs and vendors’ desire to keep
control over their products [19].
Some researchers have suggested that the use of similar systems
across the country will create opportunities for human factors
researchers by facilitating comparison of similar functionality
[5]; however, such opportunities may not reach fruition because
of local configurations that allow the same product to be
implemented in completely different ways across clients [32].
Overcoming the vendor oligopoly will demand development of
informatics solutions proved to be more effective than current
systems’ functionality, which leads us to the next UC: innovation
Unintended Consequence 3: Innovation Vacuum
As EHR adoption has primarily been achieved through financial
incentives, the cycle of technological innovation typical of other
industries has not been observed in the US HIT sector. As a
result, commercial EHRs were adopted before fixing widely
known problems such as poor usability [33], which has been
associated to patient harm [34,35], and suboptimal clinical
decision support (CDS) systems [36] such as excessive,
overzealous alerts frequently ignored by providers [37]. In
addition, a recent evaluation of EHR certification criteria
concluded that the certification process is not designed to
prevent patient harm [38]. Specifically, the report found that
the usability testing required does not include a representative
sample, does not include real clinical scenarios, and does not
simulate changes added through system configuration by local
The accelerated adoption also affected benchmarking
organizations such as Intermountain Healthcare, Partners
Healthcare, and the Veterans Health Administration that have
traditionally promoted most HIT innovations [39]. These
organizations decided to replace their systems with commercial
EHRs, putting an end to the homegrown systems’ era. As a
result, some of these organizations decided to dissolve their
informatics departments [40,41], decreasing their investment
in informatics innovation.
With widespread adoption of suboptimal and poorly tested
systems, along with traditional innovators stepping aside, fixing
the EHR now is a bit like fixing an airplane midflight, and
without a pilot.
J Med Internet Res 2019 | vol. 21 | iss. 5 | e13313 | p.3
(page number not for citation purposes)
The Path Forward
At least 2 panels at recent American Medical Informatics
Association annual symposia have presented informatics
innovations in the post-MU era with clients of 1 large HIT
vendor, and most innovations included SMART on FHIR apps
[42,43]. Panelists have pointed out that as commercial EHRs
can properly handle capabilities such as billing, data storage,
and privacy regulations, informatics innovators tend to be freer
to innovate in the post-MU era. However, as previously
mentioned, most HIT vendors are not yet fully open to seamless
interface with external apps. In addition, FHIR is a standard
under development, and a substitute for the traditional innovators
is yet to be found. To aggravate the problem, most contracts
signed between providers and HIT vendors include clauses that
hamper transparency by preventing providers from sharing
usability and safety issues that could otherwise advance EHR
design [44].
There was a natural reason for having most HIT innovations
coming from benchmarking organizations: neither HIT vendors
nor academic departments have seamless access to clinicians
at the point of care, where informatics applications are put to
the test. In naturalistic settings, iterations between clinicians
and informaticists facilitate an understanding of users’ needs
to inform EHR development. Academic informatics departments
could serve as a natural replacement for the traditional
innovators by promoting cutting-edge research toward fixing
the EHR, coupled with more robust HIT evaluations. However,
this replacement will demand a closer relationship between
academic departments and their medical centers. In US
universities, these departments tend to function as independent
organizations, which hampers researchers’ access to HIT
resources and clinicians at the point of care. Work in such a
direction has started [45-47] and serves as example of the path
needed to design new business models, fostering innovation
and transparency, and fixing the EHR.
Unintended Consequence 4: Physician Burnout
The accelerated adoption of commercial EHRs coincided (and
likely was programmed to coincide) with the implementation
of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The slow, but steady,
implementation of pay-for-performance payment models has
given rise to the EHR-based quality measurement [48]. The
push for reporting clinical performance generates an increased
demand for capturing accurate, structured data [5], and the use
of suboptimal EHRs in these tasks has contributed to the so
called EHR-associated physician burnout [49]. The use of
clinical documentation for nonclinical purposes is increasing
and is source of frustration among physicians [50,51]. This is
reinforced by the fact that electronic clinical notes generated in
the United States are significantly longer than similar
documentation in other developed countries [52]. Recent studies
have found that in the post-MU and ACA era, for every hour
of patient contact time, physicians may spend up to 2 hours on
electronic documentation [53,54]. The documentation burden
has been so intense that in some cases, physicians intentionally
close slots in their agenda to complete electronic documentation
of previous patients [17].
The Path Forward
In addition to simplifying billing requirements [6] and
developing informatics solutions to extract quality indicators
from clinical documentation [5], a fundamental redesign of the
EHR to improve data entry and retrieval is needed. The
structured and static format of current EHR interfaces force
physicians to record clinical data through predefined and strict
functionality dependent on the current desktop kit (pointer +
keyboard + monitor with a cluttered EHR interface). For
physicians to keep the richer narrative of their clinical
assessments while decreasing the documentation burden, EHRs
must demand less typing and clicking [55]. New technologies
such as conversational speech recognition (CSR) have recently
achieved human parity with regards to transcription error rate
[56] and have tremendous potential for substantially decreasing
typing and clicking. However, CSR solutions may be
compromised by the fact that clinicians may make conscious
decisions about what information to communicate to patients
and to document in the EHR [57]. Therefore, there are
opportunities for research exploring what information clinicians
document (or not) in the EHR and what information they do
not communicate verbally to the patient but document in their
clinical notes [58]; such findings will inform development of
CSR and other data-entry solutions capable of handling such
situations. Regarding data retrieval, EHR content retrieved by
physicians is influenced by their tasks or information goals
[59,60]; however, such stimuli are not captured by current EHRs.
Future research should investigate how EHRs can support data
retrieval with intelligent stimulus- or goal-oriented functionality
that allows a holistic view of the patient and flexible navigation
across the record [58] to hopefully decrease the documentation
burden and its contribution to the next UC: data obfuscation.
Unintended Consequence 5: Data Obfuscation
Physicians frequently create their clinical notes by using the
patient’s previous note, a practice known as copy-and-paste.
[61] As a result, they often produce (and later deal with)
uninformative, bloated notes that often contain redundant
information and errors [62,63]. In addition, these notes do not
provide the data in a way that increases clinicians’ situational
awareness (ie, the perception and comprehension of relevant
information necessary to take action) [64], and in some cases
may never be read [65]. The problem is aggravated by
overwhelming CDS alerts and reminders; many clinicians
complain that such alerts make them vulnerable to information
overload, which might lead them to miss important information
[66]. The obfuscation of relevant data resulting from bloated
records has been reported [67,68], associated with potential
safety hazards [69] and with delayed or incorrect decisions at
the point of care [70].
The Path Forward
Some proposed solutions to highlighting relevant data include
tailoring physicians’ use of EHRs to document what they are
thinking about the patient’s situation [64], transferring some
data entry to patients [6], or new policies to facilitate health
information exchange (HIE) [5,6,71]. Such proposals are
unlikely to succeed in isolation as they require clinicians to enter
or import even more information into already bloated records.
J Med Internet Res 2019 | vol. 21 | iss. 5 | e13313 | p.4
(page number not for citation purposes)
In addition, the effectiveness of HIE seems to be understudied
[72]; although some studies report HIE-associated improvements
[73], others report the opposite [74].
Concise documentation that highlights relevant data will come
from smarter EHRs that actively participate in patient care [75];
however, to be smarter, EHRs must be able to capture and
process more information about the patient’s context and
clinicians’ reasoning. Previous studies suggest that clinicians
seem to always know something that is only partially represented
in or is missing entirely from the EHR [37,76]. For example,
EHRs are incapable of understanding why clinicians order what
they order, or how current symptoms are related to previous
problems. Although most EHRs allow medical records to be
structured on a problem-oriented basis, such structure does not
capture the reasoning behind the relationship between problems
and other clinical concepts. For example, a medication can be
linked to a problem, indicating that it was ordered to treat a
particular problem, but the reasoning (why) behind the choice
for this particular medication is not captured by the EHR. If
such data were captured, several opportunities for informatics
research would emerge to apply (and improve) computational
methods (eg, machine learning, natural language processing,
and text generation methods) to empower the EHR to use
patient’s care context data. Context-rich data could be used to
facilitate note creation, to create automatic notes ready for
review, and to increase the accuracy of CDS, potentially
mitigating the already infamous alert fatigue [37]. However, 2
major challenges remain: (1) A formal representation of the
semantic relationships between clinical concepts (eg, symptoms,
findings, problems, diagnoses, and treatments) does not exist
and (2) Effective methods for capturing and representing
clinicians’ reasoning need to be developed [58]. EHR vendors
have avoided this path to avert coliability for medical errors
when eventual system failures lead to misleading
recommendations [77,78]. What vendors have avoided translates
into several opportunities for informatics researchers. The
development of a formal representation of clinicians reasoning
seems to be a promising alternative to empower EHRs to
represent patients’ situation [79]. However, the application of
such a representation into actual patient data will demand new,
more effective data-entry approaches [58], improvements to
data visualization [80], and computational methods [55].
On balance, despite the unexpected effects and challenges of
nationwide EHR adoption, several opportunities for developing
more effective EHRs and evaluation methods are likely to
emerge from the forces promoting progress. The UCs here
discussed do not intend to be exhaustive; other consequences
may be revealed as new, more robust HIT evaluations are
reported. We hypothesize that overcoming these UCs will likely
require a path reverse to the one that produced them. By creating
smarter clinical information systems with more intuitive
navigation and data entry functionality, clinicians could save
time searching, synthesizing, and documenting data in the EHR,
which would contribute to alleviate data obfuscation and
mitigate burnout. Such systems will likely come from external
applications developed through cutting-edge research conducted
in academic medical centers that tend to be a natural replacement
for earlier informatics innovators. These applications, if
successfully implemented and evaluated, may back providers
up on their demands to have most large EHR vendors opening
their platforms, which would facilitate the development of new
business models and decrease market oligopoly. Finally, by
accumulating evidence of the effectiveness of these applications,
in isolation and in conjunction with commercial EHRs, a better
understanding of the true positive effects of HIT can be obtained
by future systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
The multiple efforts proposed here will demand collaboration
between diverse players such as health care providers,
administrators, HIT vendors, policy makers, informatics
researchers, funding agencies, and outside developers toward
a single goal: to realize the full potential of a digitized health
This work was supported by research funds from the Informatics Institute of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Conflicts of Interest
None declared.
1. Garfield E. The unintended and unanticipated consequences of Robert K Merton. Soc Stud Sci 2016 Jun 29;34(6):845-853.
[doi: 10.1177/0306312704042087]
2. Institute of Medicine. The Computer-based Patient Record: An Essential Technology for Health Care. Revised Edition.
Dick RS, Steen EB, Detmer DE. editors. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1997:-.
3. United States Department of Health and Human Services. HITECH Act § 13400(5) URL:
files/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/hitechact.pdf [accessed 2019-05-10] [WebCite Cache ID 78H4DGfp7]
4. The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Health IT Dashboard URL: https://dashboard. [accessed 2019-05-10] [WebCite Cache ID 78H1fzXpZ]
5. Sittig DF, Wright A, Ash J, Singh H. New unintended adverse consequences of electronic health records. Yearb Med Inform
2016 Nov 10(1):7-12. [doi: 10.15265/IY-2016-023] [Medline: 27830226]
J Med Internet Res 2019 | vol. 21 | iss. 5 | e13313 | p.5
(page number not for citation purposes)
6. Payne TH, Corley S, Cullen TA, Gandhi TK, Harrington L, Kuperman GJ, et al. Report of the AMIA EHR-2020 Task
Force on the status and future direction of EHRs. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015 Sep;22(5):1102-1110. [doi:
10.1093/jamia/ocv066] [Medline: 26024883]
7. Buntin MB, Burke MF, Hoaglin MC, Blumenthal D. The benefits of health information technology: a review of the recent
literature shows predominantly positive results. Health Aff (Millwood) 2011 Mar;30(3):464-471 [FREE Full text] [doi:
10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0178] [Medline: 21383365]
8. Jones SS, Rudin RS, Perry T, Shekelle PG. Health information technology: an updated systematic review with a focus on
meaningful use. Ann Intern Med 2014 Jan 7;160(1):48-54. [doi: 10.7326/M13-1531] [Medline: 24573664]
9. Hillestad R, Bigelow J, Bower A, Girosi F, Meili R, Scoville R, et al. Can electronic medical record systems transform
health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005;24(5):1103-1117 [FREE Full text]
[doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.24.5.1103] [Medline: 16162551]
10. Papanicolas I, Woskie LR, Jha AK. Health care spending in the United States and other high-income countries. J Am Med
Assoc 2018 Mar 13;319(10):1024-1039. [doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.1150] [Medline: 29536101]
11. Colicchio TK, Fiol GD, Stoddard GJ, Narus SP. Evaluation of a systematic methodology to detect in near real-time
performance changes during electronic health record system implementations: a longitudinal study. AMIA Annu Symp
Proc 2017;2017:595-604 [FREE Full text] [Medline: 29854124]
12. Colicchio TK, Del Fiol G, Scammon DL, Facelli JC, Bowes WA, Narus SP. Comprehensive methodology to monitor
longitudinal change patterns during EHR implementations: a case study at a large health care delivery network. J Biomed
Inform 2018 Jul;83:40-53. [doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2018.05.018] [Medline: 29857137]
13. Murphy DR, Meyer AN, Russo E, Sittig DF, Wei L, Singh H. The burden of inbox notifications in commercial electronic
health records. JAMA Intern Med 2016 Apr;176(4):559-560 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.0209]
[Medline: 26974737]
14. Bryant AD, Fletcher GS, Payne TH. Drug interaction alert override rates in the Meaningful Use era: no evidence of progress.
Appl Clin Inform 2014;5(3):802-813 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.4338/ACI-2013-12-RA-0103] [Medline: 25298818]
15. Kruse CS, Beane A. Health information technology continues to show positive effect on medical outcomes: systematic
review. J Med Internet Res 2018 Feb 05;20(2):e41 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.8793] [Medline: 29402759]
16. Brynjolfsson E, Hitt LM. Beyond the productivity paradox. Commun ACM 1998 Aug;41(8):49-55. [doi:
17. Colicchio TK, Borbolla D, Colicchio VD, Del Fiol G, Scammon DL, Facelli JC, et al. Looking Behind the Curtain: Identifying
Factor Affecting Care Outcomes During a Large Commercial EHR Implementation. eGEMs 2019 May 06;7((1): 21):1-12
[FREE Full text]
18. Jones SS, Heaton PS, Rudin RS, Schneider EC. Unraveling the IT productivity paradox--lessons for health care. N Engl J
Med 2012 Jun 14;366(24):2243-2245. [doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1204980] [Medline: 22693996]
19. Wachter RM, Howell MD. Resolving the productivity paradox of health information technology: a time for optimism. J
Am Med Assoc 2018 Jul 03;320(1):25-26. [doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.5605] [Medline: 29813165]
20. Colicchio TK, Facelli JC, Del Fiol G, Scammon DL, Bowes WA, Narus SP. Health information technology adoption:
understanding research protocols and outcome measurements for IT interventions in health care. J Biomed Inform 2016
Dec;63:33-44 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2016.07.018] [Medline: 27450990]
21. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2005 Aug;2(8):e124 [FREE Full text] [doi:
10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124] [Medline: 16060722]
22. Koppel R. Is healthcare information technology based on evidence? Yearb Med Inform 2013;8:7-12. [Medline: 23974542]
23. Rudin RS, Jones SS, Shekelle P, Hillestad RJ, Keeler EB. The value of health information technology: filling the knowledge
gap. Am J Manag Care 2014 Nov;20(11 Spec No. 17):eSP1-eSP8 [FREE Full text] [Medline: 25811814]
24. Harrison MI, Koppel R, Bar-Lev S. Unintended consequences of information technologies in health care--an interactive
sociotechnical analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007;14(5):542-549 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2384]
[Medline: 17600093]
25. Lagarde M. How to do (or not to do) ... Assessing the impact of a policy change with routine longitudinal data. Health
Policy Plan 2012 Jan;27(1):76-83. [doi: 10.1093/heapol/czr004] [Medline: 21278077]
26. Hacker K, Penfold R, Zhang F, Soumerai SB. Impact of electronic health record transition on behavioral health screening
in a large pediatric practice. Psychiatr Serv 2012 Mar;63(3):256-261 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1176/]
[Medline: 22267253]
27. Joseph S, Sow M, Furukawa MF, Posnack S, Chaffee MA. HITECH spurs EHR vendor competition and innovation, resulting
in increased adoption. Am J Manag Care 2014 Sep;20(9):734-740 [FREE Full text] [Medline: 25365748]
28. HIMSS Analytics. Which EHR vendor boosts the most hospital clients URL:
healthcare-information-technology/himss-analytics-which-ehr-vendor-boasts-the-most-hospital-clients.html [accessed
2019-05-10] [WebCite Cache ID 78H1uhMHv]
29. KLAS Research. Hospital EMR Market Share URL:
1279 [accessed 2019-05-10] [WebCite Cache ID 78H2NA96Y]
J Med Internet Res 2019 | vol. 21 | iss. 5 | e13313 | p.6
(page number not for citation purposes)
30. Mandel JC, Kreda DA, Mandl KD, Kohane IS, Ramoni RB. SMART on FHIR: a standards-based, interoperable apps
platform for electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016 Sep;23(5):899-908 [FREE Full text] [doi:
10.1093/jamia/ocv189] [Medline: 26911829]
31. KLAS Research. EMR Global Market URL: [accessed
2019-05-10] [WebCite Cache ID 78H2R8Sxz]
32. Koppel R, Lehmann CU. Implications of an emerging EHR monoculture for hospitals and healthcare systems. J Am Med
Inform Assoc 2015 Mar;22(2):465-471. [doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2014-003023] [Medline: 25342181]
33. Middleton B, Bloomrosen M, Dente MA, Hashmat B, Koppel R, Overhage JM, et al. Enhancing patient safety and quality
of care by improving the usability of electronic health record systems: recommendations from AMIA. J Am Med Inform
Assoc 2013 Jun;20(e1):e2-e8 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001458] [Medline: 23355463]
34. Howe JL, Adams KT, Hettinger AZ, Ratwani RM. Electronic health record usability issues and potential contribution to
patient harm. J Am Med Assoc 2018 Dec 27;319(12):1276-1278 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.1171] [Medline:
35. Ratwani RM, Savage E, Will A, Fong A, Karavite D, Muthu N, et al. Identifying electronic health record usability and
safety challenges in pediatric settings. Health Aff (Millwood) 2018 Dec;37(11):1752-1759. [doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0699]
[Medline: 30395517]
36. Ash JS, Sittig DF, Campbell EM, Guappone KP, Dykstra RH. Some unintended consequences of clinical decision support
systems. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2007:26-30 [FREE Full text] [Medline: 18693791]
37. Baysari MT, Tariq A, Day RO, Westbrook JI. Alert override as a habitual behavior-a new perspective on a persistent
problem. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017 Dec 01;24(2):409-412. [doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocw072] [Medline: 27274015]
38. The Pew Trusts. Ways to Improve Electronic Health Record Safety URL:
reports/2018/08/28/ways-to-improve-electronic-health-record-safety [accessed 2019-05-10] [WebCite Cache ID 78H2Uya7M]
39. Evans RS. Electronic health records: then, now, and in the future. Yearb Med Inform 2016 May 20;Suppl 1:S48-S61. [doi:
10.15265/IYS-2016-s006] [Medline: 27199197]
40. Bowes WA. Impacts of EHR certification and meaningful use implementation on an integrated delivery network. AMIA
Annu Symp Proc 2014;2014:325-332 [FREE Full text] [Medline: 25954335]
41. DeseretNews. Intermountain Healthcare to Outsource 98 Information Technology Employees URL: https://www.
html [accessed 2019-05-10] [WebCite Cache ID 78H4Ngvot]
42. AMIA Annual Symposium 2015. URL: [accessed 2019-05-10] [WebCite Cache
ID 78H2dsODP]
43. AMIA Annual Symposium 2018. Agenda URL: [accessed
2019-05-10] [WebCite Cache ID 78H2jJk8N]
44. Ratwani R, Hodgkins M, Bates D. Improving electronic health record usability and safety requires transparency. J Am Med
Assoc 2018 Dec 25;320(24):4. [Medline: 30489619]
45. Crump J, Del Fiol G, Williams M, Freimuth R. Prototype of a Standards-Based EHR and Genetic Test Reporting Tool
Coupled with HL7-Compliant Infobuttons. AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc 2018;2017:330-339 [FREE Full text] [Medline:
46. Bergquist T, Buie R, Li K, Brandt P. Heart on FHIR: integrating patient generated data into clinical care to reduce 30 day
heart failure readmissions (Extended Abstract). AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2017;2017:2269-2273 [FREE Full text] [Medline:
47. Sinha S, Jensen M, Mullin S, Elkin P. Safe Opioid Prescription: a SMART on FHIR approach to clinical decision support.
Online J Public Health Inform 2017 Sep 08;9(2):A. [Medline: 29026458]
48. Cusack CM, Hripcsak G, Bloomrosen M, Rosenbloom ST, Weaver CA, Wright A, et al. The future state of clinical data
capture and documentation: a report from AMIA's 2011 Policy Meeting. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013 Jan 1;20(1):134-140
[FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001093] [Medline: 22962195]
49. Shanafelt TD, Dyrbye LN, West CP. Addressing physician burnout: the way forward. J Am Med Assoc 2017 Dec
07;317(9):901-902. [doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.0076] [Medline: 28196201]
50. Ho Y, Gadd C, Kohorst K, Rosenbloom S. A qualitative analysis evaluating the purposes and practices of clinical
documentation. Appl Clin Inform 2014;5(1):153-168 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.4338/ACI-2013-10-RA-0081] [Medline:
51. Koopman R, Steege L, Moore J, Clarke M, Canfield S, Kim M, et al. Physician information needs and Electronic Health
Records (EHRs): time to reengineer the clinic note. J Am Board Fam Med 2015;28(3):316-323 [FREE Full text] [doi:
10.3122/jabfm.2015.03.140244] [Medline: 25957364]
52. Downing N, Bates D, Longhurst C. Physician burnout in the electronic health record era. Ann Intern Med 2019 Feb
05;170(3):216-217. [doi: 10.7326/L18-0604] [Medline: 30716744]
53. Sinsky C, Colligan L, Li L, Prgomet M, Reynolds S, Goeders L, et al. Allocation of Physician Time in Ambulatory Practice:
A Time and Motion Study in 4 Specialties. Ann Intern Med 2016 Dec 06;165(11):753-760. [doi: 10.7326/M16-0961]
[Medline: 27595430]
J Med Internet Res 2019 | vol. 21 | iss. 5 | e13313 | p.7
(page number not for citation purposes)
54. Arndt BG, Beasley JW, Watkinson MD, Temte JL, Tuan W, Sinsky CA, et al. Tethered to the EHR: primary care physician
workload assessment using EHR event log data and time-motion observations. Ann Fam Med 2017 Sep;15(5):419-426
[FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1370/afm.2121] [Medline: 28893811]
55. Wachter R, Goldsmith J. Harvard Business Review. 2018. To combat physician burnoutimprove care, fix the electronic
health record URL:
[accessed 2019-05-14] [WebCite Cache ID 78MyJabp4]
56. Xiong W, Droppo J, Huang X, Seide F, Seltzer M, Stolcke A. arXivcs Internet. 2016. Achieving Human Parity in
Conversational Speech Recognition URL: [accessed 2018-04-25]
57. Tuepker A, Zickmund S, Nicolajski C, Hahm B, Butler J, Weir C. Providers? Note-Writing Practices for Post-traumatic
Stress Disorder at Five United States Veterans Affairs Facilities. J Behav Health Serv Res 2016 Jul 01;43(3):42. [Medline:
58. Colicchio T, Cimino JJ. Clinicians' reasoning as reflected in electronic clinical note-entry and reading/retrieval: a systematic
review and qualitative synthesis. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019 Feb 01;26(2):172-184. [doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocy155]
[Medline: 30576561]
59. Rizvi RF, Harder KA, Hultman GM, Adam TJ, Kim M, Pakhomov SV, et al. A comparative observational study of inpatient
clinical note-entry and reading/retrieval styles adopted by physicians. Int J Med Inform 2016 Jun;90:1-11. [doi:
10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.02.011] [Medline: 27103191]
60. Wright M, Dunbar S, Macpherson B, Moretti E, Del Fiol G, Bolte J, et al. Toward designing information display to support
critical care. A qualitative contextual evaluation and visioning effort. Appl Clin Inform 2016 Dec 05;7(4):912-929 [FREE
Full text] [doi: 10.4338/ACI-2016-03-RA-0033] [Medline: 27704138]
61. Siegler EL, Adelman R. Copy and paste: a remediable hazard of electronic health records. Am J Med 2009
Jun;122(6):495-496. [doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2009.02.010] [Medline: 19486708]
62. Wrenn J, Stein D, Bakken S, Stetson P. Quantifying clinical narrative redundancy in an electronic health record. J Am Med
Inform Assoc 2010;17(1):49-53 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1197/jamia.M3390] [Medline: 20064801]
63. Hammond KW, Helbig ST, Benson CC, Brathwaite-Sketoe BM. Are electronic medical records trustworthy? Observations
on copying, pasting and duplication. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2003:269-273 [FREE Full text] [Medline: 14728176]
64. Lenert L. Toward medical documentation that enhances situational awareness learning. AMIA Annu Symp Proc
2016;2016:763-771 [FREE Full text] [Medline: 28269872]
65. Hripcsak G, Vawdrey DK, Fred MR, Bostwick SB. Use of electronic clinical documentation: time spent and team interactions.
J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011;18(2):112-117 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1136/jamia.2010.008441] [Medline: 21292706]
66. Singh H, Spitzmueller C, Petersen NJ, Sawhney MK, Sittig DF. Information overload and missed test results in electronic
health record-based settings. JAMA Intern Med 2013 Apr 22;173(8):702-704 [FREE Full text] [doi:
10.1001/2013.jamainternmed.61] [Medline: 23460235]
67. Tsou A, Lehmann C, Michel J, Solomon R, Possanza L, Gandhi T. Safe practices for copy and paste in the EHR. Systematic
review, recommendations, and novel model for health IT collaboration. Appl Clin Inform 2017 Dec 11;8(1):12-34 [FREE
Full text] [doi: 10.4338/ACI-2016-09-R-0150] [Medline: 28074211]
68. Partnership for Health IT Patient Safety. 2016 Feb. Health IT Safe Practices: Toolkit for the Safe Use of Copy and Paste
URL: [accessed 2019-05-10] [WebCite
Cache ID 78H3G7AoQ]
69. Bowman S. Impact of electronic health record systems on information integrity: quality and safety implications. Perspect
Health Inf Manag 2013;10:1c [FREE Full text] [Medline: 24159271]
70. Singh H, Giardina T, Meyer A, Forjuoh S, Reis M, Thomas E. Types and origins of diagnostic errors in primary care
settings. JAMA Intern Med 2013 Mar 25;173(6):418-425 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2777]
[Medline: 23440149]
71. Halamka JD, Tripathi M. The HITECH era in retrospect. N Engl J Med 2017 Sep 07;377(10):907-909. [doi:
10.1056/NEJMp1709851] [Medline: 28877012]
72. Rahurkar S, Vest JR, Menachemi N. Despite the spread of health information exchange, there is little evidence of its impact
on cost, use, and quality of care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2015 Mar;34(3):477-483. [doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0729] [Medline:
73. Frisse ME, Johnson KB, Nian H, Davison CL, Gadd CS, Unertl KM, et al. The financial impact of health information
exchange on emergency department care. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012;19(3):328-333 [FREE Full text] [doi:
10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000394] [Medline: 22058169]
74. Lang E, Afilalo M, Vandal AC, Boivin J, Xue X, Colacone A, et al. Impact of an electronic link between the emergency
department and family physicians: a randomized controlled trial. Can Med Assoc J 2006 Jan 31;174(3):313-318 [FREE
Full text] [doi: 10.1503/cmaj.050698] [Medline: 16399880]
75. Cimino JJ. Improving the electronic health record--are clinicians getting what they wished for? J Am Med Assoc 2013 Mar
13;309(10):991-992 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.890] [Medline: 23483171]
76. Her Q, Amato M, Seger D, Beeler P, Slight S, Dalleur O, et al. The frequency of inappropriate nonformulary medication
alert overrides in the inpatient setting. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016 Sep;23(5):924-933. [Medline: 27002076]
J Med Internet Res 2019 | vol. 21 | iss. 5 | e13313 | p.8
(page number not for citation purposes)
77. Koppel R, Kreda D. Health care information technology vendors' "hold harmless" clause: implications for patients and
clinicians. J Am Med Assoc 2009 Mar 25;301(12):1276-1278. [doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.398] [Medline: 19318655]
78. Wachter R. The Digital Doctor: hope, hype, and harm at the dawn of medicine?. The Digital Doctor: McGraw-Hill, New
York; 2015:1260019608-1260019690.
79. Cimino J, Li Z, Weng C. An exploration of the terminology of clinical cognition and reasoning. AMIA Annu Symp Proc
2018;2018:321-329 [FREE Full text] [Medline: 30815071]
80. Nolan ME, Siwani R, Helmi H, Pickering BW, Moreno-Franco P, Herasevich V. Health IT usability focus section: data
use and navigation patterns among medical ICU clinicians during electronic chart review. Appl Clin Inform 2017
Dec;8(4):1117-1126. [doi: 10.4338/ACI-2017-06-RA-0110] [Medline: 29241249]
ACA: Affordable Care Act
ARRA: America Recovery and Reinvestment Act
CDS: clinical decision support
CSR: conversational speech recognition
EHR: electronic health record
FHIR: Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources
HIE: health information exchange
HIT: health information technology
MU: Meaningful Use
SMART: Substitutable Medical Applications & Reusable Technologies
UCs: unintended consequences
Edited by G Eysenbach; submitted 07.01.19; peer-reviewed by A Martínez-García, N Delvaux, B Vaes; comments to author 28.03.19;
revised version received 09.04.19; accepted 26.04.19; published 18.05.19
Please cite as:
Colicchio TK, Cimino JJ, Del Fiol G
Unintended Consequences of Nationwide Electronic Health Record Adoption: Challenges and Opportunities in the Post-Meaningful
Use Era
J Med Internet Res 2019;21(5):e13313
©Tiago K Colicchio, James J Cimino, Guilherme Del Fiol. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research
(, 18.05.2019. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete
bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on, as well as this copyright and license information
must be included.
J Med Internet Res 2019 | vol. 21 | iss. 5 | e13313 | p.9
(page number not for citation purposes)
... Over two decades have passed since the Institute of Medicine recognized the growing problems in the U.S. healthcare delivery system and called for the transition to digital health with a focus on system-wide change (1). However, progress in healthcare delivery system change has been painfully slow (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10). Despite calls by the National Research Council (11) and the National Academies of Science and Medicine (12) for convergent, team-based transdisciplinary design science research, the preponderance of healthcare research and funding continues to support more traditional disciplinary research approaches (5, 13,14). ...
... Achieving this goal for funding parity with traditional basic science research still faces significant challenges (4, 6,7,18,24,45,52,106,110). Since the mid-20 th century, funding decisions by NSF and other federal agencies have been guided by longstanding distinctions between basic research (understanding) and applied science (use), which characterized them as empirically separate (111). ...
Full-text available
The growing focus on healthcare transformation (i.e., new healthcare delivery models) raises interesting issues related to research design, methodology, and funding. More than 20 years have passed since the Institute of Medicine first called for the transition to digital health with a focus on system-wide change. Yet progress in healthcare delivery system change has been painfully slow. A knowledge gap exists; research has been inadequate and critical information is lacking. Despite calls by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine for convergent, team-based transdisciplinary research with societal impact, the preponderance of healthcare research and funding continues to support more traditional siloed discipline research approaches. The lack of impact on healthcare delivery suggests that it is time to step back and consider differences between traditional science research methods and the realities of research in the domain of transformational change. The proposed new concepts in research design, methodologies, and funding are a needed step to advance the science. The Introduction looks at the growing gap in expectations for transdisciplinary convergent research and prevalent practices in research design, methodologies, and funding. The second section summarizes current expectations and drivers related to digital health transformation and the complex system problem of healthcare fragmentation. The third section then discusses strengths and weaknesses of current research and practice with the goal of identifying gaps. The fourth section introduces the emerging science of healthcare delivery and associated research methodologies with a focus on closing the gaps between research and translation at the frontlines. The final section concludes by proposing new transformational science research methodologies and offers evidence that suggests how and why they better align with the aims of digital transformation in healthcare delivery and could significantly accelerate progress in achieving them. It includes a discussion of challenges related to grant funding for non-traditional research design and methods. The findings have implications broadly beyond healthcare to any research that seeks to achieve high societal impact.
... The transition from paper charts to Electronic Health Records (EHRs) has clear advantages in promoting efficiency and data sharing, but it can also cause unexpected consequences, such as reduced patient-physician communication and physician burnout [1,2]. The use of contentimporting shortcuts to write clinical notes, such as copy-and-paste, has been reported widely in the literature [3][4][5][6][7] and is one of the controversial issues brought by EHRs. ...
... The use of importing technology is one of the notable changes in the era of EHR that could have long-reaching impacts. Though it brings short-term benefits by reducing manual typing and recording time, bloated notes created by practices like copy-and-paste could harm the documentation quality and hinder care coordination [2,10]. Furthermore, with the increasing interest in deriving machine learning models from the EHR data, there are concerns over the integrity of data for this purpose [34]. ...
One unintended consequence of the Electronic Health Records (EHR) implementation is the overuse of content-importing technology, such as copy-and-paste, that creates “bloated” notes containing large amounts of textual redundancy. Despite the rising interest in applying machine learning models to learn from real-patient data, it is unclear how the phenomenon of note bloat might affect the Natural Language Processing (NLP) models derived from these notes. Therefore, in this work we examine the impact of redundancy on deep learning-based NLP models, considering four clinical prediction tasks using a publicly available EHR database. We applied two deduplication methods to the hospital notes, identifying large quantities of redundancy, and found that removing the redundancy usually has little negative impact on downstream performances, and can in certain circumstances assist models to achieve significantly better results. We also showed it is possible to attack model predictions by simply adding note duplicates, causing changes of correct predictions made by trained models into wrong predictions. In conclusion, we demonstrated that EHR text redundancy substantively affects NLP models for clinical prediction tasks, showing that the awareness of clinical contexts and robust modeling methods are important to create effective and reliable NLP systems in healthcare contexts.
... Since the passage of the Act in 2009, there has been extensive growth in the use of electronic records. As of 2017, there was 95% usage of EMRs as a platform to document healthcare delivery and influence clinical decision-making in the United States [10]. The growth has been fueled by the need to improve healthcare quality, attain efficiency, and the increasing financial pressure. ...
Full-text available
The use of electronic health records (EHRs) has grown significantly in the past decade. Health information databases contain sensitive patient information, including their names and addresses, tests, diagnoses, treatment, and medical history. This information should be secured and protected from manipulation and fraudulent use by third parties. EHRs are expected to increase efficiency in healthcare delivery, improve healthcare quality, and relieve increased financial pressure. Despite these expected benefits, EHRs are potentially vulnerable to security concerns that may affect the confidentiality and privacy of patients' personal information. This paper presents a literature review of EHRs, factors that support the security and safety of health records, potential security breaches, and solutions to inherent security concerns. The study collects data through a systematic review of past studies that have addressed the topic of EHRs and security issues, and other relevant publications on EHR systems, and procedures that help safeguard health records databases. A total of 30 sources are analyzed for all pertinent information regarding security concerns of health records databases. These sources were obtained through an internet search on credible databases, including Google Scholar, PubMed, and CINAHL databases. The results of the current study reveal the perceived vulnerability of EHRs to security concerns, common security issues, the nature of these common security concerns, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act rules, provider responsibilities, and recommendations for reducing EHR security risks. This paper also reveals effective strategies such as privacy-protection awareness and staff training to enhance the security of health records databases.
... Over the past decade, these systems have increased transparency and access to medical information. In 2011, the federal Meaningful Use program [5] encouraged health care organizations to allow patients to view and download their personal health records. Since then, several federal incentives and loan programs have emerged to promote EHR use, including the Medicare and Medicaid Promoting Interoperability Programs, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act, and initiatives to support telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. ...
Full-text available
Purpose of Review Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women, and the leading cause of cancer death. However, racial and ethnic minority groups, as well as rural and underserved populations, face disparities that limit their access to specialty care for breast cancer. To address these disparities, health care providers can leverage an electronic health record (EHR). Recent Findings Few studies have evaluated the potential benefits of using EHRs to address breast cancer disparities, and none of them outlines a standard approach for this effort. However, these studies outline that EHRs can be used to identify and notify patients at risk for breast cancer. These systems can also automate referrals and scheduling for screening and genetic testing, as well as recruit eligible patients for clinical trials. EHRs can also provide educational materials to reduce risks associated with modifiable risk factors, such as physical activity, obesity, and smoking. These systems can also support telemedicine visits and centralize inter-institutional communication to improve treatment adherence and the quality of care. Summary EHRs have tremendous potential to increase accessibility and communication for patients with breast cancer by augmenting patient engagement, improving communication between patients and providers, and strengthening communication among providers. These efforts can reduce breast cancer disparities by increasing breast cancer screening, improving treatment adherence, expanding access to specialty care, and promoting risk-reducing habits among racial and ethnic minority groups and other underserved populations.
... 34 Further, these systems can contribute to physician burnout because of a lack of flexibility and one-size-all approaches to documentation despite differences in practice and care patterns. 35 Additionally, reliance on a single vendor could lead to monopolistic behavior by the vendor. Over time, organizations with single-vendor solutions may face increasing maintenance, subscription, and upgrade costs, potentially reducing the benefits gained from organizational and clinical performance improvements. ...
Full-text available
Objective To compare how hospitals that use single-vendor vs best-of-breed electronic health record (EHR) vendors utilize clinical and organizational evaluation capabilities. Methods Data from the 2018 (June 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017) American Hospital Association Information Technology Supplement Survey and Medicare Final Rule Standardizing File were used. Multinomial logistic regression analysis of hospitals (n=1902) was conducted to identify hospital characteristics associated with the use of EHRs for (1) clinical care evaluation capabilities and (2) organizational evaluation capabilities. Results Single-vendor EHR hospitals were more likely (relative risk ratio, 3.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.97-5.76) to use EHRs for clinical care and organizational evaluation capabilities. Not-for-profit hospitals were more likely to use EHRs for all organizational evaluation capabilities than government nonfederal hospitals. For-profit hospitals were less likely to use EHRs for organizational or clinical evaluation capabilities than government nonfederal hospitals. Conclusion Hospitals using the single-vendor EHR system were more likely to engage in clinical care and organizational evaluation than hospitals using best-of-breed EHR systems.
Objectives The purpose of this study is to understand the relationship between documentation burden and clinician burnout syndrome in nurses working in direct patient care. The Office of the National Coordinator considers documentation burden a high priority problem. However, the presence of documentation burden in nurses working in direct patient care is not well known. Furthermore, the presence of documentation burden has not been linked to the development of clinician burnout syndrome. Methods This paper reports that the results of a cross-sectional survey study comprised of three tools: (1) The burden of documentation for nurses and mid-wives survey, (2) the system usability scale, and (3) Maslach's burnout inventory for medical professionals. Results Documentation burden has a weak to moderate correlation to clinician burnout syndrome. Furthermore, poor usability of the electronic health record (EHR) is also associated with documentation burden and clinician burnout syndrome. Conclusion This study suggests that there is a relationship between documentation burden and clinician burnout syndrome. The correlation of poor usability and domains of clinician burnout syndrome implies the need for more work on improving the usability of EHR for nursing documentation. Further study regarding the presence of documentation burden and its correlation to clinician burnout syndrome should focus on specific areas of nursing to understand the drivers of documentation burden variation within and across specialty domains.
Understanding how to use training best practices can improve training outcomes and increase efficiency. It is important to meet the development needs of the health care workforce who take care of patients by providing effective and succinct training. The goal of this chapter is to introduce the importance of evidence-based practices for learning professionals. Evidence-based principles will be discussed throughout the book to help guide the management and delivery of high-quality training programs.
A panel sponsored by the American College of Medical Informatics (ACMI) at the 2021 AMIA Symposium addressed the provocative question: “Are Electronic Health Records dumbing down clinicians?” After reviewing electronic health record (EHR) development and evolution, the panel discussed how EHR use can impair care delivery. Both suboptimal functionality during EHR use and longer-term effects outside of EHR use can reduce clinicians’ efficiencies, reasoning abilities, and knowledge. Panel members explored potential solutions to problems discussed. Progress will require significant engagement from clinician-users, educators, health systems, commercial vendors, regulators, and policy makers. Future EHR systems must become more user-focused and scalable and enable providers to work smarter to deliver improved care.
This study synthesized the available evidence of simulation-based electronic health records (EHRs) training in educational and clinical environments for healthcare providers in the literature. The Arksey and O’Malley methodological framework was employed. A systematic search was carried out in relevant databases from inception to January 2020, identifying 24 studies for inclusion. Three themes emerged: (a) role of simulation-based EHR training in evaluating improvement interventions, (b) debriefing and feedback methods used, and (c) challenges of evaluating simulation-based EHR training. The majority of the studies aimed to emphasize the practical skills of individual medical trainees and employed post-simulation feedback as the feedback method. Future research should focus on (a) using simulation-based EHR training to achieve specific learning goals, (b) investigating aspects of clinical performance that are susceptible to skill decay, and (c) examining the influence of simulation-based EHR training on team dynamics.
Full-text available
Objective: To identify factors contributing to changes on quality, productivity, and safety outcomes during a large commercial electronic health record (EHR) implementation and to guide future research. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study assessing the impact of a commercial EHR implementation. The method consisted of a quantitative longitudinal evaluation followed by qualitative semi-structured, in-depth interviews with clinical employees from the same implementation. Fourteen interviews were recorded and transcribed. Three authors independently coded interview narratives and via consensus identified factors contributing to changes on 15 outcomes of quality, productivity, and safety. Results: We identified 14 factors that potentially affected the outcomes previously monitored. Our findings demonstrate that several factors related to the implementation (e.g., incomplete data migration), partially related (e.g., intentional decrease in volume of work), and not related (e.g., health insurance changes) may affect outcomes in different ways. Discussion: This is the first study to investigate factors contributing to changes on a broad set of quality, productivity, and safety outcomes during an EHR implementation guided by the results of a large longitudinal evaluation. The diversity of factors identified indicates that the need for organizational adaptation to take full advantage of new technologies is as important for health care as it is for other services sectors. Conclusion: We recommend continuous identification and monitoring of these factors in future evaluations to hopefully increase our understanding of the full impact of health information technology interventions.
Full-text available
Integration of genetic information is becoming increasingly important in clinical practice. However, genetic information is often ambiguous and difficult to understand, and clinicians have reported low-self-efficacy in integrating genetics into their care routine. The Health Level Seven (HL7) Infobutton standard helps to integrate online knowledge resources within Electronic Health Records (EHRs) and is required for EHR certification in the US. We implemented a prototype of a standards-based genetic reporting application coupled with infobuttons leveraging the Infobutton and Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) Standards. Infobutton capabilities were provided by Open Infobutton, an open source package compliant with the HL7 Infobutton Standard. The resulting prototype demonstrates how standards-based reporting of genetic results, coupled with curated knowledge resources, can provide dynamic access to clinical knowledge on demand at the point of care. The proposed functionality can be enabled within any EHR system that has been certified through the US Meaningful Use program.
Full-text available
Introduction. Although Electronic Health Record (EHR) adoption has increased in the U.S., our understanding of how it affects health care organizations is still limited. Current literature has produced mixed-results due to the use of simple, non-standardized measurements and poor research designs. Methods. We propose the use of a systematic methodology that combines measures of quality, productivity and safety processes, tracked over time using an interrupted time-series design with multiple control sites. Results. Our methodology successfully detected performance changes during an EHR implementation on 17 (77%) outcomes, including a significant increase in Emergency Department length of stay immediately after go live by 0.19 hours [95%CI (0.12, 0.27), p<0.001], and an improvement in time to complete radiology tests, which significantly decreased per month by 0.19 minutes [95%CI (-0.26, -0.12), p<0.001]. Conclusion. The proposed methodology was able to detect several changes immediately after an EHR implementation and over time. The method is a promising and robust approach to assessing the impact of EHR implementations on a wide range of health care quality, productivity, and safety care processes.
We hypothesize that the functionality of electronic health records could be improved with the addition of formal representations of clinicians' cognitive processes, including such things as the interpretation and synthesis of patient findings and the rational for diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. We carried out a four-phase analysis of clinical case studies to characterize how such processes are represented through relationships between clinical terms. The result is an terminology of 26 relationships that were validated against published clinical cases with 85.4% interrater reliability. We believe that capturing patient-specific information with these relationships can lead to improvements in clinical decision support systems, information retrieval and learning health systems.
Objective: To describe the literature exploring the use of electronic health record (EHR) systems to support creation and use of clinical documentation to guide future research. Materials and Methods: We searched databases including MEDLINE, Scopus, and CINAHL from inception to April 20, 2018, for studies applying qualitative or mixed-methods examining EHR use to support creation and use of clinical documentation. A qualitative synthesis of included studies was undertaken. Results: Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed in detail. We briefly reviewed 9 studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria but provided recommendations for EHR design. We identified 4 key themes: purposes of electronic clinical notes, clinicians’ reasoning for note-entry and reading/retrieval, clinicians’ strategies for note-entry, and clinicians’ strategies for note-retrieval/reading. Five studies investigated note purposes and found that although patient care is the primary note purpose, non-clinical purposes have become more common. Clinicians’ reasoning studies (n = 3) explored clinicians’ judgement about what to document and represented clinicians’ thought process in cognitive pathways. Note-entry studies (n = 6) revealed that what clinicians document is affected by EHR interfaces. Lastly, note-retrieval studies (n = 12) found that “assessment and plan” is the most read note section and what clinicians read is affected by external stimuli, care/information goals, and what they know about the patient. Conclusion: Despite the widespread adoption of EHRs, their use to support note-entry and reading/retrieval is still understudied. Further research is needed to investigate approaches to capture and represent clinicians’ reasoning and improve note-entry and retrieval/reading.
Over the last 9 years the US health care system has undergone an unprecedented transition from paper-based clinical record keeping to electronic health records (EHRs). This transition, incentivized by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act passed in 2009, has many potential benefits for clinicians and patients, including improved efficiency, quality, and safety for many clinical processes.
Pediatric populations are uniquely vulnerable to the usability and safety challenges of electronic health records (EHRs), particularly those related to medication, yet little is known about the specific issues contributing to hazards. To understand specific usability issues and medication errors in the care of children, we analyzed 9,000 patient safety reports, made in the period 2012-17, from three different health care institutions that were likely related to EHR use. Of the 9,000 reports, 3,243 (36 percent) had a usability issue that contributed to the medication event, and 609 (18.8 percent) of the 3,243 might have resulted in patient harm. The general pattern of usability challenges and medication errors were the same across the three sites. The most common usability challenges were associated with system feedback and the visual display. The most common medication error was improper dosing.
During the past decade, the US health care system has gone digital. In 2008, fewer than 1 in 10 US hospitals had an electronic health record (EHR) system; today, fewer than 1 in 10 does not. The increase in use of an EHR system in ambulatory practices has been similarly steep.