From the WSJ Health Blog:
Standard measures of hospital quality aren’t improved much by the use of electronic medical records, according to a recently published study by Rand Corp. researchers.
The study compared data on hospital EMR capability from 2003 and 2006 and publicly reported hospital quality data for 2004 and 2007, looking specifically at care for pneumonia, heart failure and heart attack.
During the period studied, the quality of care for those three conditions was “broadly improving,” the authors wrote, and quality scores for heart failure improved significantly more among hospitals that used a basic EMR system throughout the study period.
But the same relationship wasn’t seen between basic EMRs and pneumonia or heart-attack quality scores. And quality improvements at hospitals with advanced EMR systems were actually smaller than those seen at hospitals with no EMR system at all.
Quality improvements at hospitals that started using an EMR system for the first time during the study period or upgraded to a more advanced system also mostly lagged those at hospitals that made no change to their EMR capability. The study was published online by the American Journal of Managed Care.
Spencer Jones, first author of the study and an associate information scientist at Rand, tells the Health Blog that trying to introduce an EMR system to an already complex health-care workplace can cause “a myriad of unintended consequences” in terms of workflow and communication. That’s especially true with the full-bells-and-whistles systems, which include things such as computerized physician order entry system. “The complex systems are more difficult to implement and use,” he says.
It’s also “tough to do two things at once” by simultaneously introducing EMRs and also trying to improve standard quality measures, says Jones.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »