Keywords
electronic health records and systems - electronic dental records - dental clinic
- adoption - socioorganizational issues
Background and Significance
Background and Significance
Oral health care is an integral component to the overall health of an individual.[1] However, dental and medical fields have often operated in separate domains—divided
by policy, insurance, education, and professionalization.[2] Recently, movements to improve interprofessional collaboration[3] have suggested the potential value of exchanging patient data in bridging the dental–medical
divide.[3]
[4] A study in 2017 found that medical care providers reported substantial value in
having access to a patient's oral health data.[5] The appropriate exchange of patient data, such as medical history, dental history,
laboratory reports, and prescribed medications, between dental and medical clinics
has the potential to breakdown structural barriers that obstruct medical and dental
communication, allow for better cooperation between medical and dental clinics, and
provide more reliable data on a patient's overall health.[3]
[6]
[7]
One of the essential first steps to an integrated medical–dental patient data environment
is the development, adoption, and widespread use of certified interoperable electronic
health record (EHR) systems in both the dental and medical fields. Certified EHRs
are software systems that have been tested and certified by the Office of the National
Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), and, thereby, meet certain standards
and functions required for Meaningful Use and interoperability attestation. Many studies
have analyzed the adoption and factors that contribute to the adoption of EHRs in
medicine.[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] The ONC has documented increased adoption of EHRs across health care contexts,[15] due in part to the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health
(HITECH) Act and Meaningful Use/Promoting Interoperability mandate. In dentistry,
on the other hand, there have been fewer studies analyzing the adoption of dental
information technology (IT), such as electronic dental records (EDRs),[7]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] with significantly less research focused on examining factors associated with adoption.
The consensus from most dental researchers and practitioners is that the adoption
of IT software in dentistry has been slower than in the medical field.[20] The most recent findings from a national study in the United States in 2012 found
an overall self-reported EDR adoption rate of 52%.[19] For comparison, the national-level adoption of “any EHR” in an office-based physician
practice in the same year was 71.8%.[15]
As the health care field becomes more integrated, and health care IT becomes more
interoperable, it has been predicted that the environment (e.g., location) and organizational
structure (e.g., practice size) will play an ever-increasing role in influencing and
modulating adoption decisions.[20] In this study, we have recorded the adoption rates of dental EDRs in dental clinics
across the state of Tennessee and examined environmental and organizational factors
associated with adoption. To take into account the broad range of dental IT systems
that fall into the category of an EDR, we examined the adoption of basic EDR systems
and those with capabilities of meeting minimum criteria and clinical quality measures
for EHR certification.
Objectives
The overarching research question driving this study is: What are the rates and practice characteristics that are associated with the adoption
of EDRs? We aimed to measure the adoption rates of EDRs and certification-capable EHRs in
dental clinics in Tennessee through a telephone survey. We ran two multivariate models
on EDR adoption and certification-capable EHR adoption to determine environmental
and organizational factors associated with adoption. We examined rates across practice
characteristics, such as location (i.e., oral health region and rurality), size of
the practice, and specialty.
Materials and Methods
Sampling Frame
Statewide representative dental clinic telephone survey data were collected in 2017
in Tennessee. The target population was all dental clinic offices, which included
general dental offices and specialty practices. The sampling frame was obtained from
the Tennessee Department of Health (TDH), based on publicly available licensure reports
of all dentists who are licensed to practice in Tennessee.[21] These reports include information such as race, gender, date of graduation, clinic
location, clinic contact information, and limited specialty information. Because the
unit of analysis in this study is the dental clinic (and not the individual dentist),
this data set was normalized to uniquely represent each office. The normalization
process led to the size of the data set decreasing from 5,770 individual dental licensing
numbers in the original data set to 2,066 dental clinics in the normalized data set.
Survey Design
The survey included an opening script, a consent script, and a 10-item questionnaire
(see [Appendix A] for survey overview). The survey was developed with the objectives of the study
in mind with input from dentists, dental assistants, and survey specialists at the
Vanderbilt University Department of Health Policy and Center for Medicine, Health,
and Society. The content validity and stability of the survey was determined by pretesting
on several dental clinics. Feedback from dentists and dental staff guided the development
of the finalized instrument. The survey was estimated to take around 3 minutes to
complete. The dental office was selected as the primary unit of analysis for several
reasons. Prior to designing the survey, a direct observational study was conducted
by the authors to assess clinic workflow in rural and urban dental clinics. One of
the findings showed that dental staff, as opposed to the dentist, were the primary
users of dental IT, from booking to inputting treatment and medication data. A dental
workflow study in 2016 showed similar findings.[22] Interviews from several members of the dental staff team indicated that staff were
well-versed in the type of dental IT product used in the clinic. Furthermore, in both
clinics observed, the staff were integral in the decision-making process of the type
of IT system the dentist purchased. This finding falls in line with studies that have
indicated that health IT adoption is an office-level decision instead of an individual
decision.[12]
[23]
Appendix A
Survey Overview
|
1. Does your practice currently use an electronic dental record (EDR) keeping system
of some kind?
□ Yes*
□ No†
*If yes, what is the name of the EDR system you are using?
|
†If no, are you predominantly paper based?
□ Yes
□ No
|
|
2. What type of practice is this?
□ Private
□ Group
□ Corporate
*† If specialty or both, what type of specialty is practices?
|
3) Is this a specialty practice or a general practice?
□ General
□ Specialty*
□ Both†
|
|
4) How many dentists work at this practice?
□ One
□ Two
□ (Three or more)
*Do you take Medicare or Medicaid patients?
□ Yes
□ No
|
5) Do you take insurance of any kind?
□ Yes*
□ No
|
|
6) Approximately how many patients do you see per month?
|
|
|
Additional Comments
|
|
|
|
Survey Measures
Independent Variables: Oral Health Region, Rurality, Practice Size, and Specialty
The regional location was determined based upon the county where the clinic resided.
The region was defined using the seven TDH oral health regions, all containing a regional
office and a central public health dental clinic.[24] Each of the counties represented was then giving a numerical value using the Index
of Relative Rurality (IRR). The IRR, which was introduced by Dr. Brigitte Waldorf[25] at Purdue University, provides a continuous measure of the relative rurality of
a county based on four dimensions: population size, density, percentage of urban residents,
and distance to the closest metropolitan area. The rurality measure varies from 0
to 1, with 0 being the most urban and 1 being the most rural. The exact value for
the rurality of each of Tennessee's 95 counties using the IRR has been previously
calculated by the Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and
published in a 2016 report.[26] [Fig. 1] details the geographic distribution of the IRR in the sampling frame. For comparative
purposes, we also examined adoption across the U.S. Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) county-level dichotomous metropolitan/nonmetropolitan categories.[26]
Fig. 1 Geographical distribution of Index of Relative Rurality by county in the sampling
frame. Lower scores represent more urban on the IRR scale. The lowest score was 0.1330
(Shelby County), while the highest score was 0.611 (Perry County). Four counties were
not represented.
The practice size was estimated by the number of dentists practicing in the clinic,
and was categorized into 1 or ≥ 2 and was assessed by the question, “How many dentists
work at this practice?” The number of practitioners working in a clinic is often used
as a substitute for practice size.[12]
[27] Specialty clinics were defined based on approved definitions by the Council on Dental
Education and Licensure (e.g., oral surgery, orthodontist, periodontist, etc.).[28] Each clinic surveyed was asked if the clinic was a general or specialty practice.
A follow-up question determined what type of specialty, or specialties, were practiced.
Dependent Variables: EDR and EHR Adoption
Most health IT record-keeping systems in the medical and dental fields fall into the
categories of EHRs, electronic medical records (EMRs), and, in the case of dentistry,
EDRs. Informally, these terms are often used interchangeably and broadly describe
a computer system used for tracking a patient's clinical data electronically. The
ONC, however, reserves the term EHR for software systems that are capable of sharing
data between multiple health care organizations.[29] EHR products that are certified must be capable of meeting a set of functions that
is defined in the Certified Health IT Product List.[30] It should be noted that system functionality, design, and architecture still differ
between certified EHR products.[31] The data stored within noncertified EMRs are usually not shared so readily. EDRs
that are not certified through the ONC can be considered comparable in functionality
to EMRs. However, due to the lack of consistency in clinical terminology, data standards,
and controlled vocabularies between various EDR systems, it is difficult to make direct
comparisons.[32]
To take into account the wide range of dental IT products used among the surveyed
clinics, products were categorized into EDRs and certification-capable EHRs. EDRs
were defined as any dental IT product that is capable of storing patient information,
from electronic practice management systems with clinical tools to fully certified
EHRs. Therefore, we considered all certified EHRs to also be EDRs, but not all EDRs
qualified as a certification-capable EHR. For our study, to qualify as a certification-capable
EHR, the product must have a version that meets certification requirements as defined
in the Certified Health IT Product List generated by the ONC.[33] For example, suppose that three pediatric dental clinics were sampled. The first
clinic reported the use of DOX | Pedo, another the use of Cloud9Pedo, and the last was predominantly paper-based. The first clinic is using a software
suite capable of being upgraded to a full EHR (DOX | Pedo Version 2.0), while the latter two are not.[34] Based on our definitions, we classify DOX | Pedo as an EDR and certification-capable EHR, Cloud9Pedo as an EDR only, and paper-based as neither.
The adoption of EDRs was measured based on the survey question, “Does your practice
currently use an EDR keeping system of some kind?” The reason that this language was
used, specifically “EDR” and “of some kind,” was an attempt to encompass the wide
range of IT systems used in dentistry that may fall in the category of an EDR.[7] The specific type of health IT system used was then determined by the question,
“What is the name of the EDR system you are using?” Having the specific name of the
product used in the clinic allows for determining if the system has been certified
by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and ONC.[34] If the participant said they do not use an EDR “of some kind,” the interviewer clarified
the response by asking if the clinic is predominantly paper-based.
Analyses
Categorization and Sampling
For sampling and analytic purposes, the IRR for each county was stratified into four
groups: urban, low rurality, medium rurality, and high rurality, with urban and high
rurality representing the least and most rural, respectively. To do this while avoiding
arbitrarily categorizing the IRR, the K-means clustering method was used on the cleaned data set. K-means is a technique that is designed to group similar observations in a data set,
such that observations in the same group are as similar to each other as possible
and observations in different groups are as different from each other as possible.[35] The final clustering is dependent upon both the initial centroid position and the
initial K-value that is picked. The initial centroid position was determined by randomly assigning
a value and then, through a dispersed method, selecting the farthest available point
for the next centroid. To avoid bias in selecting a K-value, a scree plot and a search for a kink in the curve generated from the within
sum of squares (WSS) for numerous cluster solutions was used. After 20 cluster solutions
(K-values of 1–20) were tested with random starting points, a kink was found in the
WSS curve at a K-value of 4. The final categorization generated from the K-means cluster and descriptive statistics for the intervals are detailed in [Table 1].
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for IRR categories for 2,066 dental offices in cleaned data
set
|
Rurality category
|
Centroid[a]
|
Lower bound[b]
|
Upper bound
|
Frequency
(no. of offices)
|
Relative frequency
|
Frequency
(no. of counties)
|
|
Urban
|
0.152
|
0.133
|
0.236
|
950
|
0.460
|
4
|
|
Low
|
0.270
|
0.237
|
0.344
|
619
|
0.300
|
12
|
|
Medium
|
0.392
|
0.345
|
0.446
|
272
|
0.132
|
21
|
|
High
|
0.491
|
0.447
|
0.611
|
225
|
0.109
|
53
|
Abbreviation: IRR, Index of Relative Rurality.
a Data point at the center of the cluster.
b Lower value indicates more urban on the IRR scale.
Due to the relatively low number of clinics in the medium and high rurality clusters,
a disproportionate stratified sampling procedure was used to adequately compare differences
in adoption between rural and urban areas. The stratum used was rurality category.
Initially, simple random sampling was conducted in each rurality category until a
total of 25 survey responses in each category were recorded with a total of 100 completed
surveys. A review of the data showed an insufficient number of specialty clinics were
sampled. Simple random sampling was conducted on the population until a total of 50
additional survey responses were recorded. Of the 50 survey responses, one was determined
to be ineligible as the clinic was affiliated with a university that was using multiple
IT systems.
Weighted Ratios
The process of initially sampling an equal number of dental clinics in each rurality
category led to 4.74% of urban offices, 8.4% of low rurality offices, 9.19% of medium
rurality offices, and 12% of high rurality offices getting selected. To increase precision,
poststratification weight adjustments were made based on sampling frame characteristics
in the cleaned data set for analysis of rural–urban differences. Furthermore, since
regional information was available for all observations in the sampling frame, it
was selected as another characteristic to poststratify and was used in bivariate analysis.
Association of Dental IT Adoption and Independent Variables
Prior to running multivariate analyses, we examined the relationships between explanatory
variables. As expected, collinearity was observed between oral health region and rurality.
Furthermore, due to an inadequate sample size for oral health region as established
according to Cochran[36] for chi-square tests, oral health region was dropped from multivariate procedures.
Instead, a Fisher's exact test adjusted for poststratification weights was used to
determine relationships between dental IT adoption and oral health region. Two logistic
regression models were conducted to assess factors that were associated with two outcomes
of interest: EDR and EHR adoption. The predictor variables for both regression models
were the same and included rurality, practice size, and specialization. Previous studies
conducted in the medical field have indicated that these factors may be associated
with adoption.[14]
[37]
[38] IRR rurality designations were used in multivariate analysis. All analyses were
performed using Stata Release 14.2 (StataCorp LP).
Results
Sample Distribution and Descriptive Statistics
Overall, 149 successful surveys were recorded. There was a response rate of 36.3%
(149 surveys/410 telephone calls). When comparing nonrespondents to respondents, we
found that nonrespondents were more likely to be from the urban and low rurality categories
(p = 0.012). Descriptive statistics for the study, reported in [Table 2], show that the sample consisted of 45 urban clinics, 52 low rurality clinics, 25
medium rurality clinics, and 27 high rurality clinics. All of the seven TDH regions
were represented in the sample, with the Mid-Cumberland region (21%) being the largest
surveyed and Upper Cumberland (8%) being the lowest. Most of the clinics surveyed
(56%) identified as being general practice. [Fig. 2] details the spatial distribution of the prevalence of general practice clinics and
specialists within the 46 representative counties sampled; colors represent the sum
of value labels in the county (general practice = 0; specialist = 1), with lighter
colors representing a greater number of general practice clinics. Most practices consisted
of one practicing dentist (67%).
Fig. 2 Prevalence of sampled general and specialty clinics within counties. Colors represent
the sum of value labels of general and specialty clinics (general = 0; specialty = 1).
Lighter colors indicate a greater number of general practice clinics.
Table 2
Descriptive statistics of study sample and sampling frame
|
Variable
|
Number of cases
|
Percentage of sample
|
Number of cases in sampling frame
|
Percentage of sampling frame
|
|
Rurality
|
|
Urban
|
45
|
30
|
950
|
46
|
|
Low
|
52
|
35
|
619
|
30
|
|
Medium
|
25
|
17
|
272
|
13
|
|
High
|
27
|
18
|
225
|
11
|
|
Clinic type
|
|
General
|
83
|
56
|
|
|
|
Specialty
|
66
|
44
|
|
|
|
Region
|
|
East
|
22
|
15
|
361
|
18
|
|
Mid-Cumberland
|
31
|
21
|
670
|
32
|
|
Northeast
|
20
|
13
|
144
|
7
|
|
South Central
|
13
|
9
|
92
|
4
|
|
Southeast
|
22
|
15
|
223
|
11
|
|
Upper Cumberland
|
12
|
8
|
72
|
4
|
|
West
|
29
|
19
|
504
|
24
|
|
Size
|
|
1 Dentist
|
100
|
67
|
|
|
|
≥ 2 Dentists
|
49
|
33
|
|
|
|
Overall sample
|
149
|
100
|
2,066
|
100
|
Note: “Number of cases” values represent the frequency of dental offices per category.
Factors Associated with Health IT Adoption
All clinics successfully surveyed had either adopted a health IT product or predominantly
used a paper-based record-keeping system. A majority of clinics (77%) had adopted
some kind of EDR product, while 58% had adopted a certification-capable EHR. The regions
with the highest adoption of an EDR were the neighboring regions of East Tennessee
and Southeast Tennessee (86%). The region with the lowest overall adoption was West
Tennessee (62%). Despite there being a cluster of high adoption in the East, Southeast,
Upper Cumberland, and Mid-Cumberland regions, there was no overall evidence of a relationship
between oral health region and EDR (p = 0.118) or certified EHR adoption (p = 0.954).
Seventy-eight percent of the urban dental clinics surveyed had adopted a health IT
product of some kind compared with 63% in the high rurality category. After it was
determined whether the EDR used by the clinics qualified as being a certification-capable
EHR, the adoption rate in the urban category dropped to approximately 51%, with adoption
of a certification-capable EHR in high rurality areas at 52%. The adoption of EHRs
in low rurality and medium rurality counties was found to be 62 and 67%, respectfully.
There was no association found between adoption of an EDR (p = 0.380) or certified EHR (p = 0.534) and rurality as defined by the IRR. After metropolitan/nonmetropolitan category
definitions were applied, we found that 80% of clinics in metropolitan counties had
adopted an EDR compared with 69% in nonmetropolitan counties. For EHR-capable systems,
adoption dropped to 59% in metropolitan counties and 53% in nonmetropolitan counties.
There was also no association found between adoption and metropolitan/nonmetropolitan
categories as defined by the OMB for EDRs (p = 0.165) and certification-capable EHRs (p = 0.548) (see [Table 3]).
Table 3
EDR and certification-capable EHR adoption by region, rurality, clinic type, and clinic
size
|
Variable
|
Any EDR adoption (%)
|
EHR capable adoption (%)[b]
|
|
Yes
|
No
|
p-Values[a]
|
Yes
|
No
|
p-Values[a]
|
|
(N = 115)
|
(N = 34)
|
(N = 82)
|
(N = 60)
|
|
Region
|
|
East
|
86
|
14
|
0.118
|
62
|
38
|
0.954
|
|
Mid-Cumberland
|
84
|
16
|
57
|
43
|
|
Northeast
|
70
|
30
|
60
|
40
|
|
South Central
|
69
|
31
|
67
|
33
|
|
Southeast
|
86
|
14
|
48
|
52
|
|
Upper Cumberland
|
83
|
17
|
64
|
36
|
|
West
|
62
|
38
|
55
|
45
|
|
Rurality (IRR)
|
|
Urban
|
78
|
22
|
0.380
|
51
|
49
|
0.534
|
|
Low
|
85
|
15
|
62
|
38
|
|
Medium
|
76
|
24
|
67
|
33
|
|
High
|
63
|
37
|
52
|
48
|
|
Metro/Nonmetro
|
|
Metropolitan
|
80
|
20
|
0.165
|
59
|
41
|
0.548
|
|
Nonmetropolitan
|
69
|
31
|
53
|
47
|
|
Clinic type
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General
|
78
|
22
|
0.712
|
69
|
31
|
0.003[c]
|
|
Specialty
|
76
|
24
|
44
|
56
|
|
Size
|
|
1 Dentist
|
74
|
26
|
0.186
|
52
|
48
|
0.034[c]
|
|
≥ 2 Dentists
|
84
|
16
|
70
|
30
|
|
Overall adoption
|
77
|
23
|
|
58
|
42
|
|
Abbreviation: EDR, electronic dental record; EHR, electronic health record; IRR, Index
of Relative Rurality; ONC, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information
Technology.
Note: Numbers represent percentage adoption in each category.
a
p-Values for chi-square tests and design-adjusted Fischer's exact test for oral health
region.
b Certified EHRs were determined through ONC certification report.
c Indicates statistically significant result
In general practice clinics, 78% had adopted an EDR of some kind compared with 76%
in the specialty category. For the adoption of a certification-capable EHR, 69% of
generalists had adopted compared with 44% of specialists, a significant difference
in proportions of 0.25, 95% confidence interval (0.09, 0.41), p = 0.003. The relative frequency of EDR adoption in clinics consisting of one practicing
dentist was 74% compared with 84% for clinics with two or more dentists. This difference
was more notable when the EHR definitions were applied, 52 and 70% respectively (see
[Fig. 3]).
Fig. 3 Prevalence of electronic dental record (EDR) and electronic health record (EHR) capable
adoption among Tennessee dental clinics by practice size, oral health region, rurality,
and clinic type.
A binomial logistic regression model for the effects of rurality (IRR), specialization,
and practice size on the likelihood that a clinic would adopt an EHR-capable product
was statistically significant (chi-square (3) = 12.41, p = 0.0061). Of the three predictor variables, specialization and practice size were
significant (see [Table 4]). Specialists were less likely to adopt compared with general practice clinics.
The odds of adopting an EHR were 67% lower for specialists than for general dentists.
Clinics with two or more practicing dentists were associated with a much greater likelihood
of adopting an EHR-capable system (adjusted odds ratio = 3.09, p = 0.009). The regression model examining EDR adoption was not significant for any
of the predictor variables (see [Table 4]).
Table 4
Logistic regression of EDR and certification-capable EHR adoption (2017)
|
Variable
|
EDR adoption
|
EHR capable adoption
|
|
Odds ratio
|
95% CI
|
p-Values
|
Odds ratio
|
95% CI
|
p-Values
|
|
Rurality
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Urban)[a]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Low
|
1.617
|
0.548–4.778
|
0.384
|
1.541
|
0.636–3.737
|
0.338
|
|
Medium
|
0.883
|
0.259–3.013
|
0.842
|
1.522
|
0.477–4.855
|
0.478
|
|
High
|
0.475
|
0.158–1.433
|
0.186
|
0.871
|
–0.260 to 0.798
|
0.798
|
|
Clinic type (generalist)
|
0.959
|
0.398–2.313
|
0.926
|
0.332
|
0.151–0.733
|
0.006[b]
|
|
Size (1 dentist)
|
2.336
|
0.914–5.969
|
0.076
|
3.09
|
1.319–7.256
|
0.009[b]
|
|
Intercept
|
4.139
|
1.176–14.573
|
0.027[b]
|
1.403
|
0.504–3.903
|
0.517
|
|
Pseudo-R
2
|
0.027
|
|
|
0.089
|
|
|
|
Number of obs.
|
149
|
|
|
142
|
|
|
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; EDR, electronic dental record; EHR, electronic
health record.
Note: Index of Relative Rurality (IRR) categories were used in the logistic regression
model.
a Reference categories are in parentheses.
b Indicates statistically significant result.
Discussion
Increasing the adoption of interoperable EHRs has been one of the central goals of
the U.S. health care system with the advent of the HITECH Act, which provided approximately
27 billion dollars of federal stimulus funds to speed up the adoption of EHRs.[39] Data indicate that adoption rates in the medical field increased substantially with
the implementation of the HITECH Act. From 2008 to 2015, office-based physician adoption
of EHRs rose from 42 to 87% with an overall use of certified EHRs at 77.9% as of 2015.[40]
The impact of the HITECH incentive structure on dental EDR and EHR adoption is not
well-known due, in part, to the lack of data.[20] However, because most dentists do not qualify for the federal incentive program
under the HITECH Act[41] as well as the high upfront cost of purchasing an EDR/EHR system,[42] we hypothesized that dental adoption lags behind medicine. Findings from this study
indicate moderate to high levels of overall dental IT adoption. However, adoption
rates in dental clinics do remain lower than the rates observed in the medical field.
In 2015, 87.4% of office-based physicians in Tennessee had adopted any EHR product[15] compared with 77% EDR adoption in dental clinics in 2017 in our study. When the
definitions of certification capable were applied, the adoption rates in dental clinics
dropped to 58%.
Based upon previously published literature, we hypothesized that there would be relationships
between adoption of dental IT and region, rurality, practice size, and clinic type
(general or specialty).[37]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49] Previous work in the medical field has operationalized regional differences in EHR
adoption as the percentage of physicians in the same hospital referral region (HRR)
that adopted an EHR.[27] HRR represents the potential to share data between medical care providers and serves
as the geographic proxy for examining regional IT adoption.[50] However, because there is no reason to believe that referral patterns for dental
care in a region overlap with those observed in medical care, TDH oral health regions
were used instead. We have shown in this study that dental clinics in different regions
had comparable rates of adoption, limiting the influence of a regional factor on driving
adoption decisions. This finding falls in line with studies detailing the prevalence
of small, individualistic, and disaggregated solo practices in dentistry.[44]
[51]
Medium and low rurality counties had the highest levels of adoption for certification-capable
EHRs. For EDR adoption, we found that the most rural counties on the IRR scale had
the lowest rates. However, we found no statistically significant differences between
adoption rates in varying rurality categories for both dental IT categories. This
finding is similar to several national-level studies that have examined adoption of
EMRs in the medical field.[12]
[38] However, it is difficult to make direct comparisons with these studies due to different
methodological approaches. For example, other studies examining rural–urban differences
did not use the IRR to define rural and urban areas. The way rural and urban areas
are defined and categorized may influence outcomes. It was expected that rurality
may overlap with the other variables examined in this study, namely, practice size
and practice region. Despite there being a relationship between region and rurality,
there was no association between practice size and rurality. Large offices were present
in both urban and high rurality areas in near equal proportions. Because most studies
in the medical field have used more traditional metro/nonmetro designations when examining
rural/urban differences in health IT adoption, we also examined adoption across the
OMB-defined county-level dichotomous metro/nonmetro categories for comparative purposes.
The results from bivariate analysis showed comparative rates between metropolitan
and nonmetropolitan areas, providing stronger evidence that a rural–urban adoption
gap is not significant in dentistry.
General practice clinics were found to be more likely to adopt a certification-capable
EHR than specialty clinics. It has been suggested that a particular specialty has
specific workflow and information needs that may differentiate them from other specialists
and generalists.[14] These needs may influence adoption decisions through an increase in uncertainty
about the benefits from EHR systems. Sherer et al[27] found that uncertain environments drive specialties to mimic and benchmark themselves
against others within the same field, allowing organizations to hedge risks. It is
expected then that trends in adoption may be present within varying specialty types.
Larger practices, determined by the number of practicing dentists, were also found
to be an important factor in predicting adoption. This has been a consistent finding
in health IT adoption in both dental and medical clinics, highlighting the unique
needs of smaller practices.[12]
[19]
[52]
We also found that the odds of adopting differed for two of the predictor variables
between EDR and certification-capable EHR products. Dental clinics in medium rurality
areas (0.345–0. 446 on IRR scale) were found to be less likely to adopt an EDR compared
with clinics in urban areas (0.133–0.236). Conversely, medium rurality clinics had
a higher likelihood of adopting an EHR-capable system compared with urban clinics.
Clinics in low and high rurality locations had comparable odds of adoption between
models. General practice clinics were found to be significantly more likely to adopt
an EHR-capable system than specialists, while the likelihood of adoption was similar
between clinic types for EDRs. The odds of adoption in both models were found to be
much greater in larger dental clinics (≥ 2 dentists). However, this finding was significant
in the EHR-defined model only. The differences in the odds of adoption between the
two models for medium rurality areas and clinic type are difficult to interpret, as
adoption was consistent for low and high rurality clinic locations and practice size.
It is possible that specialty practices and medium rurality clinics may have certain
inherent characteristics that constrain their ability to purchase certified systems
as compared with basic EDRs. On the contrary, adoption differences could be due to
the IT landscape itself, where certified systems are more accessible to generalists
and dentists of certain locations. A more thorough understanding of these differences
would necessitate an examination of adoption between varying dental specialities and
across rural/urban definitions.
To begin the process of developing a truly integrated health IT ecosystem that includes
dentistry as a critical component of one's overall health, there needs to be the development
and use of certified EHRs in both the dental and medical fields.[4] Data from this study indicate that dentistry is in a good position, but more work
needs to be done. We believe that more studies examining EHR adoption in dentistry
on a national scale are warranted, as state-level variation is a common finding in
EHR adoption.[53] Furthermore, there is a notable difference in adoption of a certification-capable
EHR and a full EHR. Having a certification-capable system is more readily convertible
to a full EHR than a system with no embedded upgradable EHR features. However, to
comprehensively understand EHR adoption in dentistry in the United States, there needs
to be an examination of the multifunctional capabilities[54]
[55] of adopted EHRs in all types of dental clinics. The benefits of legislating an increase
in the use of certified EHRs in the dental field is unclear; however, policies to
increase adoption that are mindful of potential disparities in IT use in smaller practices
and between dental specialties and generalist may have special promise for success.
Limitations
The response rate for this study was relatively low at 36% indicating a 64% nonresponse
bias, with nonrespondents more likely to be from more urban areas. Quantitative psychometric
properties of survey instrument were not determined. Clustering techniques have the
chance of increasing sampling error. The continuous measure for rurality used in the
study (IRR) was categorized through a K-means clustering technique. Categorizing this variable may have reduced the natural
variation of rurality in the population sample.[56] To partly address these problems, poststratification weights were made for the analysis
using population characteristics, as estimated by the sample frame.
Conclusion
Findings from this study indicate moderate to high levels of IT adoption in dental
clinics. We find that the percent adoption of some type of EDR among dental clinics
in Tennessee in 2017 is comparable to 2014-level estimates of percent adoption of
basic and certified EHRs in office-based physician practices in the same state. Specialization
and practice size were significant predictors of EHR-capable system adoption. Efforts
to increase dental IT adoption should be mindful of potential disparities between
larger and smaller practices as well as between dental specialists and generalists.
Clinical Relevance Statement
Clinical Relevance Statement
Oral health information is an important component of an individual's overall health
data. One of the essential first steps to an integrated medical–dental patient data
environment is the development, adoption, and widespread use of EHRs in both the dental
and medical fields. However, less attention has been paid to the adoption of IT systems
in the dental field. Findings from analogous studies in the medical field have helped
researchers, policy makers, clinicians, and vendors make more informed decisions on
how to increase IT adoption and provide a more integrated patient data environment
across medical specialties and domains. In this study, we find moderate to high levels
of overall EDR adoption in dental clinics, with organizational structure, namely,
specialization and practice size, as significant predictors of adoption of EHR-capable
systems.
Multiple Choice Questions
Multiple Choice Questions
-
When anticipating potential disparities in certified EHR adoption in dentistry, which
of the following practice characteristics are most important to consider?
-
Regional location
-
Rural/urban differences
-
Practice size
-
Percent Medicare revenue
Correct Answer: The correct answer is option c. We find that practice size is a significant predictor
of EHR-capable systems. The relative frequency of EHR adoption in clinics consisting
of one practicing dentist was 52% compared with 70% for clinics with two or more dentists.
Further, clinics with two or more practicing dentists were associated with a much
greater likelihood of adopting an EHR-capable system than a clinic with one practicing
dentist (adjusted odds ratio = 3.09, p = 0.009). This is a consistent finding across health care contexts and highlights
the unique needs of smaller practices. The regional location of the clinic and rural/urban
differences (A and B) were not associated with EHR adoption in our study. Although
we did not specifically examine percent Medicare revenue (D) of a clinic as a potential
factor for influencing dental IT adoption, it is unlikely that it would play a major
role. Traditional Medicare does not cover most dental care. As a result, Medicare
patient volume and revenue in most dental clinics is low, limiting qualifications
for the federal incentive program and influence in modulating adoption decisions.
-
Which of the following most accurately identifies the difference between a basic electronic
dental record (EDR) and a certified electronic health record (EHR) system?
-
EDRs meet criteria for Meaningful Use/Promoting Interoperability
-
Certified EHRs meet criteria for Meaningful Use/Promoting Interoperability
-
EDRs record patient demographics, computerized prescription order entry, and record
clinical notes
-
Certified EHRs record patient demographics, computerized prescription order entry,
and record clinical notes
Correct Answer: The most accurate answer is option b. Certified EHRs are systems that meet functional
criteria for Meaningful Use/Promoting Interoperability attestation. Basic EDRs can
be considered comparable in functionality to basic EMRs, where stored data are not
readily exchanged between various IT systems and, thereby, cannot be used for Meaningful
Use/Promoting Interoperability attestation. Due to the lack of consistency in functionality,
clinical terminology, data standards, and controlled vocabularies between various
EDR systems, choice (C) is not the most accurate option. Although option d is true
in most cases, it does not most accurately highlight the difference between an EDR
and a certified EHR system.
