76 research outputs found

    On the Cusp of Change: Health Information Technology in the United States, 2009

    Get PDF
    Examines the state of electronic health records (EHR) adoption in U.S. hospitals generally and in safety-net hospitals, changes in state and federal policies, links between EHR adoption and quality metrics, and implications for healthcare disparities

    Health Information Technology in the United States: The Information Base for Progress

    Get PDF
    Health information technology (HIT) has the potential to advance health care quality by helping patients with acute and chronic conditions receive recommended care, diminishing disparities in treatment and reducing medical errors. Nevertheless, HIT dissemination has not occurred rapidly, due in part to the high costs of electronic health record (EHR) systems for providers of care—including the upfront capital investment, ongoing maintenance and short-term productivity loss. Also, many observers are concerned that, if HIT follows patterns observed with other new medical technologies, HIT and EHRs may diffuse in ways that systematically disadvantage vulnerable patient populations, thus increasing or maintaining existing disparities in access to and quality of care. These and other concerns have led to public and private efforts that aim to increase the pace of and reduce disparities in HIT diffusion by formulating national plans for dissemination, catalyzing the development of standards to encourage interoperability and promoting public-private partnerships to develop HIT infrastructures at the local and regional levels

    Health Information Technology in the United States: On the Cusp of Change, 2009

    Get PDF
    In this report we use the data collected for ONCHIT to focus on EHR adoption in the inpatient setting. We report on several important policy issues. These include the rate of adoption of EHRs among U.S. hospitals generally and among safety-net hospitals, changes in both state and federal policy, and the potential of EHRs to change the quality measurement enterprise

    Partnering with Patients and Families to Improve Diagnostic Safety through the OurDX Tool: Effects of Race, Ethnicity, and Language Preference

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Patients and families at risk for health disparities may also be at higher risk for diagnostic errors but less likely to report them. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore differences in race, ethnicity, and language preference associated with patient and family contributions and concerns using an electronic previsit tool designed to engage patients and families in the diagnostic process (DxP). METHODS: Cross-sectional study of 5,731 patients and families presenting to three subspecialty clinics at an urban pediatric hospital May to December 2021 who completed a previsit tool, codeveloped and tested with patients and families. Prior to each visit, patients/families were invited to share visit priorities, recent histories, and potential diagnostic concerns. We used logistic regression to determine factors associated with patient-reported diagnostic concerns. We conducted chart review on a random subset of visits to review concerns and determine whether patient/family contributions were included in the visit note. RESULTS: Participants provided a similar mean number of contributions regardless of patient race, ethnicity, or language preference. Compared with patients self-identifying as White, those self-identifying as Black (odds ratio [OR]: 1.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.18, 2.43]) or other race (OR: 1.48; 95% CI: [1.08, 2.03]) were more likely to report a diagnostic concern. Participants who preferred a language other than English were more likely to report a diagnostic concern than English-preferring patients (OR: 2.53; 95% CI: [1.78, 3.59]. There were no significant differences in physician-verified diagnostic concerns or in integration of patient contributions into the note based on race, ethnicity, or language preference. CONCLUSION: Participants self-identifying as Black or other race, or those who prefer a language other than English were 1.5 to 2.5 times more likely than their counterparts to report potential diagnostic concerns when proactively asked to provide this information prior to a visit. Actively engaging patients and families in the DxP may uncover opportunities to reduce the risk of diagnostic errors and potential safety disparities

    Partnering With Patients and Families Living With Chronic Conditions to Coproduce Diagnostic Safety Through OurDX: A Previsit Online Engagement Tool

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVE: Patients and families are key partners in diagnosis, but methods to routinely engage them in diagnostic safety are lacking. Policy mandating patient access to electronic health information presents new opportunities. We tested a new online tool ( OurDX ) that was codesigned with patients and families, to determine the types and frequencies of potential safety issues identified by patients/families with chronic health conditions and whether their contributions were integrated into the visit note. METHODS: Patients/families at 2 US healthcare sites were invited to contribute, through an online previsit survey: (1) visit priorities, (2) recent medical history/symptoms, and (3) potential diagnostic concerns. Two physicians reviewed patient-reported diagnostic concerns to verify and categorize diagnostic safety opportunities (DSOs). We conducted a chart review to determine whether patient contributions were integrated into the note. We used descriptive statistics to report implementation outcomes, verification of DSOs, and chart review findings. RESULTS: Participants completed OurDX reports in 7075 of 18 129 (39%) eligible pediatric subspecialty visits (site 1), and 460 of 706 (65%) eligible adult primary care visits (site 2). Among patients reporting diagnostic concerns, 63% were verified as probable DSOs. In total, probable DSOs were identified by 7.5% of pediatric and adult patients/families with underlying health conditions, respectively. The most common types of DSOs were patients/families not feeling heard; problems/delays with tests or referrals; and problems/delays with explanation or next steps. In chart review, most clinician notes included all or some patient/family priorities and patient-reported histories. CONCLUSIONS: OurDX can help engage patients and families living with chronic health conditions in diagnosis. Participating patients/families identified DSOs and most of their OurDX contributions were included in the visit note

    Urgent care centers in the U.S.: Findings from a national survey

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Due to long waits for primary care appointments and extended emergency department wait times, newer sites for episodic primary care services, such as urgent care centers, have developed. However, little is known about these centers. The purpose of this study is to provide information about the organization and functioning of urgent care centers based on a nationally representative U.S. sample.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a mail survey with telephone follow-up of urgent care centers identified via health insurers' websites, internet searches, and a trade association mailing list. Descriptive statistics are presented.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Urgent care centers are open beyond typical office hours, and their scope of services is broader than that of many primary care offices. While these characteristics are similar to hospital emergency departments, such centers employ significant numbers of family physicians. The payer distribution is similar to that of primary care, and physicians' average salaries are comparable to those for family physicians overall. Urgent care centers report early adoption of electronic health records, though our findings are qualified by a lack of strictly comparable data.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>While their hours and scope of services reflect some characteristics of emergency departments, urgent care centers are in many ways similar to family medicine practices. As the health care system evolves to cope with expanding demands in the face of limited resources, it is unclear how patients with episodic care needs will be treated, and what role urgent care centers will play in their care.</p

    Assessing the Accuracy of Three National Physician Sampling Frames

    No full text
    • …
    corecore