Physician Specialty and Variations in Adoption of Electronic Health Records

Summary

Objective: Efforts to promote adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) have focused on primary care physicians, who are now expected to exchange data electronically with other providers, including specialists. However, the variation of EHR adoption among specialists is underexplored.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study to determine the association between physician specialty and the prevalence of EHR adoption, and a retrospective serial cross-sectional study to determine the association of physician specialty and the rate of EHR adoption over time. We used the 2005–2009 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. We considered fourteen specialties, and four definitions of EHR adoption (any EHR, basic EHR, full EHR, and a novel definition of EHR sophistication). We used multivariable logistic regression, and adjusted for several covariates (geography, practice characteristics, revenue characteristics, physician degree).

Results: Physician specialty was significantly associated with EHR adoption, regardless of the EHR definition, after adjusting for covariates. Psychiatrists, dermatologists, pediatricians, ophthalmologists, and general surgeons were significantly less likely to adopt EHRs, compared to the reference group of family medicine / general practitioners. After adjustment for covariates, these specialties were 44 – 94% less likely to adopt EHRs than the reference group. EHR adoption increased in all specialties, by approximately 40% per year. The rate of EHR adoption over time did not significantly vary by specialty.

Conclusions: Although EHR adoption is increasing in all specialties, adoption varies widely by specialty. In order to insure each individual’s network of providers can electronically share data, widespread adoption of EHRs is needed across all specialties.

Citation: Grinspan ZM, Banerjee S, Kaushal R, Kern LM. Physician specialty and variations in adoption of electronic health records. Appl Clin Inf 2013; 4: 225–240

http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2013-02-RA-0015

Keywords

Electronic health records - specialization - health policy - ambulatory care - United States

 

Conflicts Of Interest

This project was supported in part by the National Institute for Neurologic Disease and Stroke grant #K12-NS0662. This project was also supported in part by funds from the Clinical Translational Science Center (CTSC), National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) grant #UL1-RR024996. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding source.

• References

• 1 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 2005 Codebook. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research; 2005
• 2 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 2006 User Guide. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research; 2006
• 3 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 2007 User Guide. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research; 2007
• 4 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 2008 User Guide. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research; 2008
• 5 Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act. waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/hitech.pdf (19 April 2012).
• 6 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 2009 User Guide. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research; 2009
• 7 Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. www.icpsr.umich.edu (21 April 2012).
• 8 The Official Web Site for the Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Records (EHR) Incentive Programs. www.cms.gov/ehrincentiveprograms (19 April 2012).
• 9 Blumenthal D. Stimulating the adoption of health information technology. The New England journal of medicine 2009; 15: 1477-1479. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp0901592.
• 10 Blumenthal D, Tavenner M. The "meaningful use" regulation for electronic health records. N Engl J Med 2010; 6: 501-504. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1006114.
• 11 Bramble JD, Galt KA, Siracuse MV, Abbott AA, Drincic A, Paschal KA, Fuji KT. The relationship between physician practice characteristics and physician adoption of electronic health records. Health Care Manage Rev 2010; 1: 55-64. doi: 10.1097/HMR.0b013e3181c3f9ad.
• 12 Burt CW, Sisk JE. Which physicians and practices are using electronic medical records?. Health Aff (Mill-wood) 2005; 5: 1334-1343. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.24.5.1334.
• 13 Chiang MF, Boland MV, Margolis JW, Lum F, Abramoff MD, Hildebrand PL. Adoption and perceptions of electronic health record systems by ophthalmologists: an American Academy of Ophthalmology survey. Ophthalmology 2008; 9: 1591-1597 quiz 7 e1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.03.024.
• 14 Damico A. Transitioning to R: Replicating SAS Stata, and SUDAAN Analysis Techniques in Health Policy Data. The R Journal 2009; 2.
• 15 DesRoches CM, Campbell EG, Rao SR, Donelan K, Ferris TG, Jha A, Kaushal R, Levy DE, Rosenbaum S, Shields AE, Blumenthal D. Electronic health records in ambulatory care--a national survey of physicians. N Engl J Med 2008; 1: 50-60. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa0802005.
• 16 Esper GJ, Drogan O, Henderson WS, Becker A, Avitzur O, Hier DB. Health information technology and electronic health records in neurologic practice. Neurol Clin 2010; 2: 411-427. doi: 10.1016/j.ncl.2009.11.014.
• 17 Ferrante JM, Balasubramanian BA, Hudson SV, Crabtree BF. Principles of the patient-centered medical home and preventive services delivery. Annals of family medicine 2010; 2: 108-116. doi: 10.1370/afm.1080.
• 18 Fox J, Weisberg S. An R Companion to Applied Regression, Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2011
• 19 Grosshandler JA, Tulbert B, Kaufmann MD, Bhatia A, Brodell RT. The electronic medical record in dermatology. Arch Dermatol 2010; 9: 1031-1036. doi: 10.1001/archdermatol.2010.229.
• 20 Holroyd-Leduc JM, Lorenzetti D, Straus SE, Sykes L, Quan H. The impact of the electronic medical record on structure, process, and outcomes within primary care: a systematic review of the evidence. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011; 6: 732-737. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2010-000019.
• 21 Hsiao C, Hing E, Socey T, Cai W. Electronic Health Record Systems and Intent to Apply for Meaningful Use Incentives Among Office-based Physician Practices: United States, 2001–2011. NCHS Data Brief, no 79. National Center for Health Statistics. 2011
• 22 Kaliyadan F, Venkitakrishnan S, Manoj J, Dharmaratnam AD. Electronic medical records in dermatology: practical implications. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2009; 2: 157-161.
• 23 Kemper AR, Uren RL, Clark SJ. Adoption of electronic health records in primary care pediatric practices. Pediatrics 2006; 1: e20-e24. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-3000.
• 24 Kern LM, Malhotra S, Barron Y, Quaresimo J, Dhopeshwarkar R, Pichardo M, Edwards AM, Kaushal R. Accuracy of electronically reported "meaningful use" clinical quality measures: a cross-sectional study. Annals of internal medicine 2013; 2: 77-83. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-2-201301150-00001.
• 25 Kootte RS, Stuijver DJ, Dekkers OM, van Zaane B, Fliers E, Cannegieter SC, Gerdes VE. The incidence of venous thromboembolism in patients with overt hyperthyroidism. A retrospective multicentre cohort study. Thrombosis and haemostasis 2012; 3. doi: 10.1160/TH11-10-0691.
• 26 Li C. Use of health information technology by office-based physicians: comparison of two contemporaneous public-use physician surveys. Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2011: 1f.
• 27 Linney B. Cardiology practice proves that electronic medical records do raise revenue. Physician Exec 2003; 3: 34-36.
• 28 Lumley T. Analysis of complex survey samples. Journal of Statistical Software 2004; 1: 1-19.
• 29 Lumley T. Complex Surveys: A Guide to Analysis Using R Hoboken. NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2010
• 30 Lumley T. survey: analysis of complex survey samples. R package version 3: 28-2. 2012;
• 31 Menachemi N, Brooks RG. EHR and other IT adoption among physicians: results of a large-scale statewide analysis. J Healthc Inf Manag 2006; 3: 79-87.
• 32 Menachemi N, Powers T, Au DW, Brooks RG. Predictors of physician satisfaction among electronic health record system users. J Healthc Qual 2010; 1: 35-41.
• 33 Menachemi N, Powers TL, Brooks RG. Physician and practice characteristics associated with longitudinal increases in electronic health records adoption. J Healthc Manag 2011; 3: 183-197 discussion 97-98.
• 34 Patil M, Puri L, Gonzalez CM. Productivity and cost implications of implementing electronic medical records into an ambulatory surgical subspecialty clinic. Urology 2008; 2: 173-177. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.09.024.
• 35 Peterson D, Wickeham D. New challenge for academic psychiatry: the electronic health record. Acad Psychiatry 2011; 2: 76-80. doi: 10.1176/appi.ap.35.2.76.
• 36 Pham HH, O’Malley AS, Bach PB, Saiontz-Martinez C, Schrag D. Primary care physicians’ links to other physicians through Medicare patients: the scope of care coordination. Annals of internal medicine 2009; 4: 236-242.
• 37 AAP Division of Pediatric Practice.. AAP Engaging Regional Extension Centers to Support Members in Adoption of EHRs. AAP News 2011; 12.
• 38 Rao JNK, Scott AJ. The Analysis of Categorical Data From Complex Sample Surveys: Chi-Squared Tests for Goodness of Fit and Independence in Two Way Tables. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1981; 374: 9.
• 39 Robinson JC, Casalino LP, Gillies RR, Rittenhouse DR, Shortell SS, Fernandes-Taylor S. Financial incentives, quality improvement programs, and the adoption of clinical information technology. Med Care 2009; 4: 411-417. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31818d7746.
• 40 Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. New York, NY: Free Press; 2003
• 41 Salomon RM, Blackford JU, Rosenbloom ST, Seidel S, Clayton EW, Dilts DM, Finder SG. Openness of patients’ reporting with use of electronic records: psychiatric clinicians’ views. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010; 1: 54-60. doi: 10.1197/jamia. M3341.
• 42 Simon SR, McCarthy ML, Kaushal R, Jenter CA, Volk LA, Poon EG, Yee KC, Orav EJ, Williams DH, Bates DW. Electronic health records: which practices have them and how are clinicians using them?. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006 1097.
• 43 Spooner SA. Special requirements of electronic health record systems in pediatrics. Pediatrics 2007; 3: 631-637. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-3527.
• 44 Starr JC. Integrating digital image management software for improved patient care and optimal practice management. Dermatol Surg 2006; 6: 834-840. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4725.2006.32169.x.
• 45 R Development Core Team.. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2011