Chaudhry2006 PDF

Annals of Internal Medicine Improving Patient Care
Systematic Review: Impact of Health Information Technology on

Quality, Efficiency, and Costs of Medical Care
Basit Chaudhry, MD; Jerome Wang, MD; Shinyi Wu, PhD; Margaret Maglione, MPP; Walter Mojica, MD; Elizabeth Roth, MA;
Sally C. Morton, PhD; and Paul G. Shekelle, MD, PhD
Background: Experts consider health information technology key to Approximately 25% of the studies were from 4 academic institu-
improving efficiency and quality of health care. tions that implemented internally developed systems; only 9 studies
evaluated multifunctional, commercially developed systems. Three
Purpose: To systematically review evidence on the effect of health major benefits on quality were demonstrated: increased adherence
information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of health to guideline-based care, enhanced surveillance and monitoring, and
care. decreased medication errors. The primary domain of improvement
Data Sources: The authors systematically searched the English- was preventive health. The major efficiency benefit shown was
language literature indexed in MEDLINE (1995 to January 2004), decreased utilization of care. Data on another efficiency measure,
the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane time utilization, were mixed. Empirical cost data were limited.
Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the Periodical Limitations: Available quantitative research was limited and was
Abstracts Database. We also added studies identified by experts up done by a small number of institutions. Systems were heteroge-
to April 2005. neous and sometimes incompletely described. Available financial
Study Selection: Descriptive and comparative studies and system- and contextual data were limited.
atic reviews of health information technology. Conclusions: Four benchmark institutions have demonstrated the
Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted informa- efficacy of health information technologies in improving quality and
tion on system capabilities, design, effects on quality, system ac- efficiency. Whether and how other institutions can achieve similar
quisition, implementation context, and costs. benefits, and at what costs, are unclear.
Data Synthesis: 257 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:742-752. www.annals.org
addressed decision support systems or electronic health records. For author affiliations, see end of text.
H ealth care experts, policymakers, payers, and consum-

ers consider health information technologies, such as
electronic health records and computerized provider order
here on 3 important domains: the effects of health infor-
mation technology on quality, efficiency, and costs.
entry, to be critical to transforming the health care industry METHODS

(1–7). Information management is fundamental to health Analytic Frameworks
care delivery (8). Given the fragmented nature of health We used expert opinion and literature review to de-
care, the large volume of transactions in the system, the velop analytic frameworks (Table) that describe the com-
need to integrate new scientific evidence into practice, and ponents involved with implementing health information
other complex information management activities, the lim- technology, types of health information technology sys-
itations of paper-based information management are intu- tems, and the functional capabilities of a comprehensive
itively apparent. While the benefits of health information health information technology system (13). We modified a
technology are clear in theory, adapting new information framework for clinical benefits from the Institute of Med-
systems to health care has proven difficult and rates of use icine’s 6 aims for care (2) and developed a framework for
have been limited (9 –11). Most information technology costs using expert consensus that included measures such as
applications have centered on administrative and financial initial costs, ongoing operational and maintenance costs,
transactions rather than on delivering clinical care (12).
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
asked us to systematically review evidence on the costs and See also:
benefits associated with use of health information technol-
Print
ogy and to identify gaps in the literature in order to pro-
Key Summary Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743
vide organizations, policymakers, clinicians, and consumers
Editorial comment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 775
an understanding of the effect of health information tech-
nology on clinical care (see evidence report at www.ahrq Web-Only
.gov). From among the many possible benefits and costs of Appendix Tables
implementing health information technology, we focus Conversion of figure and tables into slides
Improving Patient Care is a special section within Annals supported in part by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
(AHRQ). The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not represent the position or endorsement of AHRQ or HHS.
742 © 2006 American College of Physicians
Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 11/02/2016

Impact of Health Information Technology on Quality, Efficiency, and Costs Improving Patient Care
fraction of health information technology penetration, and

productivity gains. Financial benefits were divided into Key Summary Points
monetized benefits (that is, benefits expressed in dollar Health information technology has been shown to im-
terms) and nonmonetized benefits (that is, benefits that prove quality by increasing adherence to guidelines, en-
could not be directly expressed in dollar terms but could be hancing disease surveillance, and decreasing medication
assigned dollar values). errors.
Data Sources and Search Strategy
Much of the evidence on quality improvement relates to
We performed 2 searches (in November 2003 and Jan- primary and secondary preventive care.
uary 2004) of the English-language literature indexed in
MEDLINE (1995 to January 2004) using a broad set of The major efficiency benefit has been decreased utilization
terms to maximize sensitivity. (See the full list of search of care.
terms and sequence of queries in the full evidence report at
www.ahrq.gov.) We also searched the Cochrane Central Effect on time utilization is mixed.
Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of
Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the Periodical Ab- Empirically measured cost data are limited and inconclu-
stracts Database; hand-searched personal libraries kept by sive.
content experts and project staff; and mined bibliographies
of articles and systematic reviews for citations. We asked Most of the high-quality literature regarding multifunc-
content experts to identify unpublished literature. Finally, tional health information technology systems comes from
we asked content experts and peer reviewers to identify 4 benchmark research institutions.
newly published articles up to April 2005.
Little evidence is available on the effect of multifunctional
Study Selection and Classification
commercially developed systems.
Two reviewers independently selected for detailed re-
view the following types of articles that addressed the Little evidence is available on interoperability and con-
workings or implementation of a health technology system: sumer health information technology.
systematic reviews, including meta-analyses; descriptive
“qualitative” reports that focused on exploration of barri- A major limitation of the literature is its generalizability.
ers; and quantitative reports. We classified quantitative re-
ports as “hypothesis-testing” if the investigators compared
data between groups or across time periods and used sta-
tistical tests to assess differences. We further categorized
more than 5% of the total sample of 257 papers was des-
hypothesis-testing studies (for example, randomized and
ignated as a benchmark research leader. We grouped syn-
nonrandomized, controlled trials, controlled before-and-af-
theses by institution and by whether the systems were com-
ter studies) according to whether a concurrent comparison
mercially or internally developed.
group was used. Hypothesis-testing studies without a con-
current comparison group included those using simple Role of the Funding Sources
pre–post, time-series, and historical control designs. Re- This work was produced under Agency for Healthcare
maining hypothesis-testing studies were classified as cross- Research and Quality contract no. 2002. In addition to the
sectional designs and other. We classified quantitative re- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, this work
ports as a “predictive analysis” if they used methods such as was also funded by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
statistical modeling or expert panel estimates to predict Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and
what might happen with implementation of health infor- Human Services, and the Office of Disease Prevention and
mation technology rather than what has happened. These Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Hu-
studies typically used hybrid methods—frequently mixing man Services. The funding sources had no role in the de-
primary data collection with secondary data collection plus sign, analysis, or interpretation of the study or in the deci-
expert opinion and assumptions—to make quantitative es- sion to submit the manuscript for publication.
timates for data that had otherwise not been empirically
measured. Cost-effectiveness and cost– benefit studies gen- DATA SYNTHESIS
erally fell into this group. Literature Selection Overview
Data Extraction and Synthesis Of 867 articles, we rejected 141 during initial screen-
Two reviewers independently appraised and extracted ing: 124 for not having health information technology as
details of selected articles using standardized abstraction the subject, 4 for not reporting relevant outcomes, and 13
forms and resolved discrepancies by consensus. We then for miscellaneous reasons (categories not mutually exclu-
used narrative synthesis methods to integrate findings into sive). Of the remaining 726 articles, we excluded 469 de-
descriptive summaries. Each institution that accounted for scriptive reports that did not examine barriers (Figure). We
www.annals.org 16 May 2006 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 144 • Number 10 743

Improving Patient Care Impact of Health Information Technology on Quality, Efficiency, and Costs
the 213 hypothesis-testing studies, 84 contained some data

Table. Health Information Technology Frameworks*
on costs.
Several studies assessed interventions with limited
Framework Basis (Reference) Elements
functionality, such as stand-alone decision support systems
Components Expert consensus Technological (e.g., system applica-
of an HIT tions)
(15–17). Such studies provide limited information about
implemen- Organizational process change (e.g., issues that today’s decision makers face when selecting and
tation workflow redesign) implementing health information technology. Thus, we
Human factors (e.g., user-friendliness)
Project management (e.g., achieving
preferentially highlight in the following paragraphs studies
project milestones) that were conducted in the United States, that had empir-
Types of HIT Expert consensus Electronic health records ically measured data on multifunctional systems, and that
systems Computerized provider order entry
Decision support (stand-alone sys- included health information and data storage in the form
tems) of electronic documentation or order-entry capabilities.
Electronic results reporting (stand- Predictive analyses were excluded. Seventy-six studies met
alone systems)
Electronic prescribing these criteria: 54 from the 4 benchmark leaders and 22
Consumer health informatics/patient from other institutions.
decision support
Mobile computing Data from Benchmark Institutions
Telemedicine (data interchange–
based)
The health information technology systems evaluated
Electronic health communication by the benchmark leaders shared many characteristics. All
Administration the systems were multifunctional and included decision
Data exchange networks
Knowledge retrieval systems
support, all were internally developed by research experts at
HIT in general the respective academic institutions, and all had capabilities
Other added incrementally over several years. Furthermore, most
Functional Institute of Medi- Clinical documentation (health infor-
capabilities cine’s “key ca- mation/data)
reported studies of these systems used research designs with
of an HIT pabilities” of Results management high internal validity (for example, randomized, controlled
system† an electronic Order entry management trials).
health record Decision support
(13) Electronic communication and con-
Appendix Table 1 (18 –71) (available at www.annals
nectivity .org) provides a structured summary of each study from the
Patient support 4 benchmark institutions. This table also includes studies
Administrative processes
Reporting and population health
that met inclusion criteria not highlighted in this synthesis
(26, 27, 30, 39, 40, 53, 62, 65, 70, 71). The data sup-
* HIT ⫽ health information technology. ported 5 primary themes (3 directly related to quality and
† Assumes the electronic health record is the foundation for a comprehensive HIT
system. 2 addressing efficiency). Implementation of a multifunc-
tional health information technology system had the fol-
lowing effects: 1) increased delivery of care in adherence to
recorded details of and summarized each of the 257 articles guidelines and protocols, 2) enhanced capacity to perform
that we did include in an interactive database (http: surveillance and monitoring for disease conditions and care
//healthit.ahrq.gov/tools/rand) that serves as the evidence delivery, 3) reductions in rates of medication errors, 4)
table for our report (14). Twenty-four percent of all studies decreased utilization of care, and 5) mixed effects on time
came from the following 4 benchmark institutions: 1) the utilization.
Regenstrief Institute, 2) Brigham and Women’s Hospital/
Partners Health Care, 3) the Department of Veterans Af- Effects on Quality
fairs, and 4) LDS Hospital/Intermountain Health Care. The major effect of health information technology on
Types and Functions of Technology Systems quality of care was its role in increasing adherence to guide-
The reports addressed the following types of primary line- or protocol-based care. Decision support, usually in
systems: decision support aimed at providers (63%), elec- the form of computerized reminders, was a component of
tronic health records (37%), and computerized provider all adherence studies. The decision support functions were
order entry (13%). Specific functional capabilities of sys- usually embedded in electronic health records or comput-
tems that were described in reports included electronic erized provider order-entry systems. Electronic health
documentation (31%), order entry (22%), results manage- records systems were more frequently examined in the out-
ment (19%), and administrative capabilities (18%). Only patient setting; provider order-entry systems were more of-
8% of the described systems had specific consumer health ten assessed in the inpatient setting. Improvements in pro-
capabilities, and only 1% had capabilities that allowed sys- cesses of care delivery ranged from absolute increases of 5
tems from different facilities to connect with each other to 66 percentage points, with most increases clustering in
and share data interoperably. Most studies (n ⫽ 125) as- the range of 12 to 20 percentage points.
sessed the effect of the systems in the outpatient setting. Of Twelve of the 20 adherence studies examined the ef-
744 16 May 2006 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 144 • Number 10 www.annals.org

Figure. Search flow for health information technology (HIT) literature.
*Includes 1 descriptive or quantitative article with costs outcomes (Pediatrics article).
fects of health information technology on enhancing pre- trial that used computerized surveillance and identification
ventive health care delivery (18, 21–25, 29, 31–33, 35, 37). of high-risk patients plus alerts to physicians demonstrated
Eight studies included measures for primary preventive a 3.3–percentage point absolute decrease (from 8.2% to
care (18, 21–25, 31, 33), 4 studies included secondary 4.9%) in a combined primary end point of deep venous
preventive measures (29, 33, 35, 37), and 1 study assessed thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in high-risk hospital-
screening (not mutually exclusive) (32). The most com- ized patients (29). One time-series study showed a 5–per-
mon primary preventive measures examined were rates of centage point absolute decrease in prevention of pressure
influenza vaccination (improvement, 12 to 18 percentage ulcers in hospitalized patients (35), and another showed a
points), pneumococcal vaccinations (improvement, 20 to 0.4 –percentage point absolute decrease in postoperative in-
33 percentage points), and fecal occult blood testing (im- fections (37).
provement, 12 to 33 percentage points) (18, 22, 24). While most evidence for health information technolo-
Three studies examined the effect of health informa- gy–related quality improvement through enhanced adher-
tion technology on secondary preventive care for compli- ence to guidelines focused on preventive care, other studies
cations related to hospitalization. One clinical controlled covered a diverse range for types of care, including hyper-

tension treatment (34), laboratory testing for hospitalized a 65% relative decrease in identification time (from 130 to
patients, and use of advance directives (see Appendix Table 1, 46 hours) (46).
available at www.annals.org, for the numeric effects) (19). The third health information technology–mediated ef-
The second theme showed the capacity of health infect on quality was a reduction in medication errors. Two
formation technology to improve quality of care through studies of computerized provider order entry from LDS
clinical monitoring based on large-scale screening and ag- Hospital (51, 52) showed statistically significant decreases
gregation of data. These studies demonstrated how health in adverse drug events, and a third study by Bates and
information technology can support new ways of deliver- colleagues (49) showed a non–statistically significant trend
ing care that are not feasible with paper-based information toward decreased drug events and a large decrease in med-
management. In one study, investigators screened more ication errors. The first LDS Hospital study used a cohort
than 90 000 hospital admissions to identify the frequency with historical control design to evaluate the effect of com-
of adverse drug events (43); they found a rate of 2.4 events/ puterized alerts on antibiotic use (52). Compared with a
100 admissions. Adverse drug events were associated with 2-year preintervention period, many statistically significant
an absolute increase in crude mortality of 2.45 percentage improvements were noted, including a decrease in antibi-
points and an increase in costs of $2262, primarily due to otic-associated adverse drug events (from 28 to 4 events),
a 1.9-day increase in length of stay. Two studies from decreased length of stay (from 13 to 10 days), and a reduc-
Evans and colleagues (44, 45) reported using an electronic tion in total hospital costs (from $35 283 to $26 315). The
health record to identify adverse drug events, examine their second study from LDS Hospital demonstrated a 0.6 –per-
cause, and develop programs to decrease their frequency. centage point (from 0.9% to 0.3%) absolute decrease in
In the first study, the researchers designed interventions on antibiotic-associated adverse drug events (51).
the basis of electronic health record surveillance that in- Bates and colleagues examined adverse events and
creased absolute adverse drug event identification by 2.36 showed a 17% non–statistically significant trend toward a
percentage points (from 0.04% to 2.4%) and decreased decrease in these events (49). Although this outcome did
absolute adverse drug event rates by 5.4 percentage points not reach statistical significance, adverse drug events were
not the main focus of the evaluation. The primary end
(from 7.6% to 2.2%) (44). The report did not describe
point for this study was a surrogate end point for adverse
details of the interventions used to reduce adverse drug
drug events: nonintercepted serious medication errors.
events. In the second study, the researchers used electronic
This end point demonstrated a statistically significant 55%
health record surveillance of nearly 61 000 inpatient ad-
relative decrease. The results from this trial were further
missions to determine that adverse drug events cause a
supported by a second, follow-up study by the same re-
1.9-day increase in length of hospital stay and an increase
searchers examining the long-term effect of the imple-
of $1939 in charges (45). mented system (48). After the first published study, the
Three studies from the Veterans Affairs system exam- research team analyzed adverse drug events not prevented
ined the surveillance and data aggregation capacity of by computerized provider order entry, and the level of
health information technology systems for facilitating qual- decision support was increased. This second study used a
ity-of-care measurement. Automated quality measurement time-series design and found an 86% relative decrease in
was found to be less labor intensive, but 2 of the studies nonintercepted serious medication errors.
found important methodologic limitations that affected Health information technology systems also decreased
the validity of automated quality measurement. For exam- medication errors by improving medication dosing. Im-
ple, 1 study found high rates of false-positive results with provements in dosing ranged from 12% to 21%; the pri-
use of automated quality measurement and indicated that mary outcome examined was doses prescribed within the
such approaches may yield biased results (41). The second recommended range and centered on antibiotics and anti-
study found that automated queries from computerized coagulation (47, 50, 51).
disease registries underestimated completion of quality-of-
care processes when compared with manual chart abstrac-
tion of electronic health records and paper chart sources Effects on Efficiency
(42). Studies examined 2 primary types of technology-re-
Finally, 2 studies examined the role of health informa- lated effects on efficiency: utilization of care and provider
tion technology surveillance systems in identifying infec- time. Eleven studies examined the effect of health informa-
tious disease outbreaks. The first study found that use of a tion technology systems on utilization of care. Eight
county-based electronic system for reporting results led to a showed decreased rates of health services utilization (54 –
29 –percentage point absolute increase in cases of shigello- 61); computerized provider order-entry systems that pro-
sis identified during an outbreak and a 2.5-day decrease in vided decision support at the point of care were the pri-
identification and public health reporting time (38). The mary interventions leading to decreased utilization. Types
second study showed a 14 –percentage point absolute in- of decision support included automated calculation of pre-
crease in identification of hospital-acquired infections and test probability for diagnostic tests, display of previous test

results, display of laboratory test costs, and computerized benchmark institutions, although an additional theme was
reminders. Absolute decreases in utilization rates ranged related to initial implementation costs. Unlike most studies
from 8.5 to 24 percentage points. The primary services from the benchmark institutions, which used randomized
affected were laboratory and radiology testing. Most stud- or controlled clinical trial designs, the most common de-
ies did not judge the appropriateness of the decrease in signs of the studies from other institutions were pre–post
service utilization but instead reported the effect of health and time-series designs that lacked a concurrent compari-
information technology on the level of utilization. Most son group. Thirteen of the 22 studies evaluated internally
studies did not directly measure cost savings. Instead, re- developed systems (72– 84). Only 9 evaluated commercial
searchers translated nonmonetized decreases in services health information technology systems. Because many de-
into monetized estimates through the average cost of the cision makers are likely to consider implementing a com-
examined service at that institution. One large study from mercially developed system rather than internally develop-
Tierney and colleagues examined direct total costs per ad- ing their own, we detail these 9 studies in the following
mission as its main end point and found a 12.7% absolute paragraphs.
decrease (from $6964 to $6077) in costs associated with a Two studies examined the effect of systems on utiliza-
0.9-day decrease in length of stay (57). tion of care (85, 86). Both were set in Kaiser Permanente’s
The effect of health information technology on pro- Pacific Northwest region and evaluated the same electronic
vider time was mixed. Two studies from the Regenstrief health record system (Epic Systems Corp., Verona, Wis-
Institute examining inpatient order entry showed increases consin) at different periods through time-series designs.
in physician time related to computer use (57, 64). An- One study (1994 –1997) supported the findings of the
other study on outpatient use of electronic health records benchmark institutions, showing decreased utilization of 2
from Partners Health Care showed a clinically negligible radiology tests after implementation of electronic health
increase in clinic visit time of 0.5 minute (67). Studies records (85), while the second study (2000 –2004) showed
suggested that time requirements decreased as physicians no conclusive decreases in utilization of radiology and lab-
grew used to the systems, but formal long-term evaluations oratory services (86). Unlike the reports from the bench-
were not available. Two studies showed slight decreases in mark institutions, this second study also showed no statis-
documentation-related nursing time (68, 69) that were due tically significant improvements in 3 process measures of
to the streamlining of workflow. One study examined quality. It did find a statistically significant decrease in
overall time to delivery of care and found an 11% decrease age-adjusted total office visits per member: a relative de-
in time to deliver treatment through the use of computer- crease of 9% in year 2 after implementation of the elec-
ized order entry with alerts to physician pagers (66). tronic health record. Telephone-based care showed a rela-
tive increase of 65% over the same time. A third study
evaluated this electronic health record and focused on effi-
Effects on Costs
ciency; it showed that physicians took 30 days to return to
Data on costs were more limited than the evidence on
their baseline level of productivity after implementation
quality and efficiency. Sixteen of the 54 studies contained
and that visit time increased on average by 2 minutes per
some data on costs (20, 28, 31, 36, 43, 47, 50 –52, 54 –58,
encounter (87).
63, 71). Most of the cost data available from the institu-
Two studies that were part of the same randomized
tional leaders were related to changes in utilization of ser-
trial from Rollman and colleagues, set at the University of
vices due to health information technology. Only 3 studies
Pittsburgh, examined the use of an electronic health record
had cost data on aspects of system implementation or
(MedicaLogic Corp., Beaverton, Oregon) with decision
maintenance. Two studies provided computer storage
support in improving care for depression (88, 89). The first
costs; these were more than 20 years old, however, and
study evaluated electronic health record– based monitoring
therefore were of limited relevance (28, 58). The third
to enhance depression screening. As in the monitoring
reported that system maintenance costs were $700 000
studies from the benchmark institutions, electronic health
(31). Because these systems were built, implemented, and
record screening was found to support new ways of orga-
evaluated incrementally over time, and in some cases were
nizing care. Physicians agreed with 65% of the computer-
supported by research grants, it is unlikely that total devel-
screened diagnoses 3 days after receiving notification of the
opment and implementation costs could be calculated ac-
results. In the second phase of the trial, 2 different elec-
curately and in full detail.
tronic health record– based decision support interventions
Data from Other Institutions about Multifunctional were implemented to improve adherence to guideline-
Systems based care for depression. Unlike the effects on adherence
Appendix Table 2 (available at www.annals.org) sum- seen in the benchmark institutions, neither intervention
marizes the 22 studies (72–93) from the other institutions. showed statistically significant differences when compared
Most of these studies evaluated internally developed sys- with usual care.
tems in academic institutions. The types of benefits found Two pre–post studies from Ohio State University eval-
in these studies were similar to those demonstrated in uated the effect of a commercial computerized order-entry

system (Siemens Medical Solutions Health Services Corp., over many years of an internally designed system led by
Malvern, Pennsylvania) on time utilization and medication academic research champions—is unlikely to be an option
errors (90, 91). As in the benchmark institutions, time to for most institutions contemplating implementation of
care dramatically decreased compared with the period be- health information technology.
fore the order-entry system was implemented. Relative Studies from these 4 benchmark institutions have
decreases in other outcomes were as follows: medication demonstrated the efficacy of health information technology
turnaround time, 64% (90) and 73% (91); radiology com- for improving quality and efficiency. However, the effec-
pletion time, 43% (90) and 24% (91); and results report- tiveness of these technologies in the practice settings where
ing time, 25% (90). Use of computerized provider order most health care is delivered remains less clear. Effective-
entry had large effects on medication errors in both studies. ness and generalizability are of particular importance in
Before implementation, 11.3% (90) and 13% (91) of or- this field because health information technologies are tools
ders had transcription errors; afterward, these errors were that support the delivery of care—they do not, in and of
entirely eliminated. One study assessed length of stay and themselves, alter states of disease or of health. As such, how
found that it decreased 5%; total cost of hospitalization, these tools are used and the context in which they are
however, showed no statistically significant differences implemented are critical (94 –96).
(90). In contrast, a third study examining the effect of For providers considering a commercially available sys-
order entry on nurse documentation time showed no ben- tem installed as a package, only a limited body of literature
efits (92). is available to inform decision making. The available evi-
In contrast to all previous studies on computer order- dence comes mainly from time-series or pre–post studies,
entry systems, a study by Koppel and colleagues used a derives from a staff-model managed care organization or
mixed quantitative– qualitative approach to investigate the academic health centers, and concerns a limited number of
possible role of such a system (Eclipsys Corp., Boca Raton, process measures. These data, in general, support the find-
Florida) in facilitating medication prescribing errors (93). ings of studies from the benchmark institutions on the
Twenty-two types of medication error risks were found to effect of health information technology in reducing utili-
be facilitated by computer order entry, relating to 2 basic zation and medication errors. However, they do not sup-
causes: fragmentation of data and flaws in human–machine port the findings of increased adherence to protocol-based
interface. care. Published evidence of the information needed to
These 9 studies infrequently reported or measured make informed decisions about acquiring and implement-
data on costs and contextual factors. Two reported infor- ing health information technology in community settings
mation on costs (90, 92). Neither described the total initial is nearly nonexistent. For example, potentially important
costs of purchasing or implementing the system being eval- evidence related to initial capital costs, effect on provider
uated. Data on contextual factors such as reimbursement productivity, resources required for staff training (such as
mix, degree of capitation, and barriers encountered during time and skills), and workflow redesign is difficult to locate
implementation were scant; only 2 studies included such in the peer-reviewed literature. Also lacking are key data on
information. The study by Koppel and colleagues (93) in- financial context, such as degree of capitation, which has
cluded detailed contextual information related to human been suggested by a model to be an important factor in
factors. One health record study reported physician class- defining the business case for electronic health record use
room training time of 16 hours before implementation (97).
(87). Another order-entry study reported that nurses re- Several systematic reviews related to health informa-
ceived 16 hours of training, clerical staff received 8 hours, tion technology have been done. However, they have been
and physicians received 2 to 4 hours (91). limited to specific systems, such as computerized provider
order entry (98); capabilities, such as computerized re-
minders (99, 100); or clinical specialty (101). No study to
DISCUSSION date has reviewed a broad range of health information
To date, the health information technology literature technologies. In addition, to make our findings as relevant
has shown many important quality- and efficiency-related as possible to the broad range of stakeholders interested
benefits as well as limitations relating to generalizability in health information technology, we developed a Web-
and empirical data on costs. Studies from 4 benchmark hosted database of our research findings. This database
leaders demonstrate that implementing a multifunctional allows different stakeholders to find the literature most rel-
system can yield real benefits in terms of increased delivery evant to their implementation circumstances and their in-
of care based on guidelines (particularly in the domain of formation needs.
preventive health), enhanced monitoring and surveillance This study has several important limitations. The first
activities, reduction of medication errors, and decreased relates to the quantity and scope of the literature. Although
rates of utilization for potentially redundant or inappropri- we did a comprehensive search, we identified only a limited
ate care. However, the method used by the benchmark set of articles with quantitative data. In many important
leaders to get to this point—the incremental development domains, we found few studies. This was particularly true

of health information technology applications relevant to determine the total cost of ownership of a system or of the
consumers and to interoperability, areas critical to the ca- return on investment are not available. Without these data,
pacity for health information technology to fundamentally the costs of health information technology systems can be
change health care. A second limitation relates to synthe- estimated only through complex predictive analysis and
sizing the effect of a broad range of technologies. We at- statistical modeling methods, techniques generally not
tempted to address this limitation by basing our work on available outside of research. One of the chief barriers to
well-defined analytic frameworks and by identifying not adoption of health information technology is the misalign-
only the systems used but also their functional capabilities. ment of incentives for its use (107, 108). Specifying poli-
A third relates to the heterogeneity in reporting. Descrip- cies to address this barrier is hindered by the lack of cost
tions of health information technology systems were often data.
very limited, making it difficult to assess whether some This review suggests several important future direc-
system capabilities were absent or simply not reported. tions in the field. First, additional studies need to evaluate
Similarly, limited information was reported on the overall commercially developed systems in community settings,
implementation process and organizational context. and additional funding for such work may be needed. Sec-
This review raises many questions central to a broad ond, more information is needed regarding the organiza-
range of stakeholders in health care, including providers, tional change, workflow redesign, human factors, and
consumers, policymakers, technology experts, and private project management issues involved with realizing benefits
sector vendors. Adoption of health information technology from health information technology. Third, a high priority
has become one of the few widely supported, bipartisan must be the development of uniform standards for the
initiatives in the fragmented, often contentious health care reporting of research on implementation of health infor-
sector (102). Currently, numerous pieces of state and fed- mation technology, similar to the Consolidated Standards
eral legislation under consideration seek to expand adop- of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statements for random-
tion of health information technology (103–105). Health ized, controlled trials and the Quality of Reporting of
care improvement organizations such as the Leapfrog Meta-analyses (QUORUM) statement for meta-analyses
Group are strongly advocating adoption of health informa- (109, 110). Finally, additional work is needed on interop-
tion technology as a key aspect of health care reform. Pol- erability and consumer health technologies, such as the
icy discussions are addressing whether physician reimburse- personal health record.
ment should be altered, with higher reimbursements for The advantages of health information technology over
those who use health information technology (106). Two paper records are readily discernible. However, without
critical questions that remain are 1) what will be the ben- better information, stakeholders interested in promoting or
efits of these initiatives and 2) who will pay and who will considering adoption may not be able to determine what
benefit? benefits to expect from health information technology use,
Regarding the former, a disproportionate amount of how best to implement the system in order to maximize
literature on the benefits that have been realized comes the value derived from their investment, or how to direct
from a small set of early-adopter institutions that imple- policy aimed at improving the quality and efficiency deliv-
mented internally developed health information technol- ered by the health care sector as a whole.
ogy systems. These institutions had considerable expertise
in health information technology and implemented sys- From the Southern California Evidence Based Practice Center, which
tems over long periods in a gradual, iterative fashion. Miss- includes RAND, Santa Monica, California; and University of California,
Los Angeles, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, and the Greater Los Angeles
ing from this literature are data on how to implement Veterans Affairs System, Los Angeles, California.
multifunctional health information technology systems in
other health care settings. Internally developed systems are Disclaimer: The authors of this article are responsible for its contents.
unlikely to be feasible as models for broad-scale use of No statement in this article should be construed as an official position of
health information technology. Most practices and organi- the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Statements made in
zations will adopt a commercially developed health infor- this publication do not represent the official policy or endorsement of the
mation technology system, and, given logistic constraints Agency or the U.S. government.
and budgetary issues, their implementation cycles will be
much shorter. The limited quantitative and qualitative de- Acknowledgments: The authors thank the Veterans Affairs/University
scription of the implementation context significantly ham- of California, Los Angeles, Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Pro-
gram, the University of California, Los Angeles, Division of General
pers how the literature on health information technology
Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, and RAND for their
can inform decision making by a broad array of stakehold- support during this research. They also thank Drs. Robert Brook, Ken-
ers interested in this field. neth Wells, and Kavita Patel for their review of the manuscript.
With respect to the business case for health informa-
tion technology, we found little information that could Grant Support: This work was produced under Agency for Healthcare
empower stakeholders to judge for themselves the financial Research and Quality contract no. 2002. In addition to the Agency for
effects of adoption. For instance, basic cost data needed to Healthcare Research and Quality, this work was also funded by the

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. De- computer-based standing orders vs physician reminders to increase influenza and
partment of Health and Human Services, and the Office of Disease pneumococcal vaccination rates: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2004;292:2366-71.
Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Hu- [PMID: 15547164]
man Services. 19. Dexter PR, Wolinsky FD, Gramelspacher GP, Zhou XH, Eckert GJ, Wais-
burd M, et al. Effectiveness of computer-generated reminders for increasing dis-
cussions about advance directives and completion of advance directive forms. A
Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest: None disclosed. randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128:102-10. [PMID:
9441569]
Requests for Single Reprints: Basit Chaudhry, MD, Division of Gen- 20. Overhage JM, Tierney WM, Zhou XH, McDonald CJ. A randomized trial
eral Internal Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, 911 Brox- of “corollary orders” to prevent errors of omission. J Am Med Inform Assoc.
ton Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90095; e-mail, 1997;4:364-75. [PMID: 9292842]
BChaudhry@mednet.ucla.edu. 21. Overhage JM, Tierney WM, McDonald CJ. Computer reminders to imple-
ment preventive care guidelines for hospitalized patients. Arch Intern Med. 1996;
156:1551-6. [PMID: 8687263]
Current author addresses are available at www.annals.org. 22. Litzelman DK, Dittus RS, Miller ME, Tierney WM. Requiring physicians
to respond to computerized reminders improves their compliance with preventive
care protocols. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:311-7. [PMID: 8320575]
References 23. McDonald CJ, Hui SL, Tierney WM. Effects of computer reminders for
influenza vaccination on morbidity during influenza epidemics. MD Comput.
1. Institute of Medicine. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System.
1992;9:304-12. [PMID: 1522792]
Washington, DC: National Academy Pr; 2000.
24. Tierney WM, Hui SL, McDonald CJ. Delayed feedback of physician per-
2. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for
formance versus immediate reminders to perform preventive care. Effects on
the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Pr; 2001.
physician compliance. Med Care. 1986;24:659-66. [PMID: 3736141]
3. The Decade of Health Information Technology: Delivering Consumer-centric
25. McDonald CJ, Hui SL, Smith DM, Tierney WM, Cohen SJ, Weinberger
and Information-rich Health Care. A Strategic Framework. Bethesda, Maryland:
M, et al. Reminders to physicians from an introspective computer medical
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services; 2004. record. A two-year randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 1984;100:130-8. [PMID:
4. Asch SM, McGlynn EA, Hogan MM, Hayward RA, Shekelle P, Rubenstein 6691639]
L, et al. Comparison of quality of care for patients in the Veterans Health Ad- 26. McDonald CJ, Wilson GA, McCabe GP Jr. Physician response to computer
ministration and patients in a national sample. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:938- reminders. JAMA. 1980;244:1579-81. [PMID: 7420656]
45. [PMID: 15611491] 27. McDonald CJ. Protocol-based computer reminders, the quality of care and
5. Epstein AM, Lee TH, Hamel MB. Paying physicians for high-quality care. N the non-perfectability of man. N Engl J Med. 1976;295:1351-5. [PMID:
Engl J Med. 2004;350:406-10. [PMID: 14736934] 988482]
6. Smith MF. E-Health: Roadmap for 21st Century Health Care Consumers. 28. McDonald CJ. Use of a computer to detect and respond to clinical events: its
Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Forum 2004: effect on clinician behavior. Ann Intern Med. 1976;84:162-7. [PMID: 1252043]
Health of Nations; 2004. 29. Kucher N, Koo S, Quiroz R, Cooper JM, Paterno MD, Soukonnikov B, et
7. Innovators and Visionaries: Strategies for Creating a Person-centered Health al. Electronic alerts to prevent venous thromboembolism among hospitalized
System. FACCT: Foundation for Accountability; September 2003. Accessed at patients. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:969-77. [PMID: 15758007]
www.markle.org/resources/facct/doclibFiles/documentFile_599.pdf on 13 March 30. Abookire SA, Teich JM, Sandige H, Paterno MD, Martin MT, Kuperman
2006. GJ, et al. Improving allergy alerting in a computerized physician order entry
8. Chassin MR, Galvin RW. The urgent need to improve health care quality. system. Proc AMIA Symp. 2000:2-6. [PMID: 11080034]
Institute of Medicine National Roundtable on Health Care Quality. JAMA. 31. Teich JM, Merchia PR, Schmiz JL, Kuperman GJ, Spurr CD, Bates DW.
1998;280:1000-5. [PMID: 9749483] Effects of computerized physician order entry on prescribing practices. Arch In-
9. Ash JS, Gorman PN, Seshadri V, Hersh WR. Computerized physician order tern Med. 2000;160:2741-7. [PMID: 11025783]
entry in U.S. hospitals: results of a 2002 survey. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004; 32. Cannon DS, Allen SN. A comparison of the effects of computer and manual
11:95-9. [PMID: 14633935] reminders on compliance with a mental health clinical practice guideline. J Am
10. Ash JS, Stavri PZ, Kuperman GJ. A consensus statement on considerations Med Inform Assoc. 2000;7:196-203. [PMID: 10730603]
for a successful CPOE implementation. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10:229- 33. Demakis JG, Beauchamp C, Cull WL, Denwood R, Eisen SA, Lofgren R,
34. [PMID: 12626376] et al. Improving residents’ compliance with standards of ambulatory care: results
11. Valdes I, Kibbe DC, Tolleson G, Kunik ME, Petersen LA. Barriers to from the VA Cooperative Study on Computerized Reminders. JAMA. 2000;284:
proliferation of electronic medical records. Inform Prim Care. 2004;12:3-9. 1411-6. [PMID: 10989404]
[PMID: 15140347] 34. Rossi RA, Every NR. A computerized intervention to decrease the use of
12. Audet AM, Doty MM, Peugh J, Shamasdin J, Zapert K, Schoenbaum S. calcium channel blockers in hypertension. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12:672-8.
Information technologies: when will they make it into physicians’ black bags? [PMID: 9383135]
MedGenMed. 2004;6:2. [PMID: 15775829] 35. Willson D, Ashton C, Wingate N, Goff C, Horn S, Davies M, et al.
13. Key Capabilities of an Electronic Health Record System. Washington, DC: Computerized support of pressure ulcer prevention and treatment protocols. Proc
Institute of Medicine, Committee on Data Standards for Patient Safety Board on Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1995:646-50. [PMID: 8563366]
Health Care Services; 2003. 36. Evans RS, Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Lundsgaarde HP, Burke JP. Improv-
14. The Health Information Technology Interactive Database. Accessed at http: ing empiric antibiotic selection using computer decision support. Arch Intern
//healthit.ahrq.gov/tools/rand on 17 March 2006. Med. 1994;154:878-84. [PMID: 8154950]
15. Goldman L, Cook EF, Brand DA, Lee TH, Rouan GW, Weisberg MC, et 37. Larsen RA, Evans RS, Burke JP, Pestotnik SL, Gardner RM, Classen DC.
al. A computer protocol to predict myocardial infarction in emergency depart- Improved perioperative antibiotic use and reduced surgical wound infections
ment patients with chest pain. N Engl J Med. 1988;318:797-803. [PMID: through use of computer decision analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
3280998] 1989;10:316-20. [PMID: 2745959]
16. White RH, Hong R, Venook AP, Daschbach MM, Murray W, Mungall 38. Overhage J, Suico J, McDonald C. Electronic laboratory reporting: barriers,
DR, et al. Initiation of warfarin therapy: comparison of physician dosing with solutions, and findings. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2001;7:60-6.
computer-assisted dosing. J Gen Intern Med. 1987;2:141-8. [PMID: 3295148] 39. Honigman B, Lee J, Rothschild J, Light P, Pulling RM, Yu T, et al. Using
17. Burton ME, Ash CL, Hill DP Jr, Handy T, Shepherd MD, Vasko MR. A computerized data to identify adverse drug events in outpatients. J Am Med
controlled trial of the cost benefit of computerized bayesian aminoglycoside ad- Inform Assoc. 2001;8:254-66. [PMID: 11320070]
ministration. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1991;49:685-94. [PMID: 1905602] 40. Jha AK, Kuperman GJ, Teich JM, Leape L, Shea B, Rittenberg E, et al.
18. Dexter PR, Perkins SM, Maharry KS, Jones K, McDonald CJ. Inpatient Identifying adverse drug events: development of a computer-based monitor and

comparison with chart review and stimulated voluntary report. J Am Med Inform 62. Fihn SD, McDonell MB, Vermes D, Henikoff JG, Martin DC, Callahan
Assoc. 1998;5:305-14. [PMID: 9609500] CM, et al. A computerized intervention to improve timing of outpatient follow-
41. Kramer TL, Owen RR, Cannon D, Sloan KL, Thrush CR, Williams DK, up: a multicenter randomized trial in patients treated with warfarin. National
et al. How well do automated performance measures assess guideline implemen- Consortium of Anticoagulation Clinics. J Gen Intern Med. 1994;9:131-9.
tation for new-onset depression in the Veterans Health Administration? Jt Comm [PMID: 8195911]
J Qual Saf. 2003;29:479-89. [PMID: 14513671] 63. Steele MA, Bess DT, Franse VL, Graber SE. Cost effectiveness of two
42. Kerr EA, Smith DM, Hogan MM, Krein SL, Pogach L, Hofer TP, et al. interventions for reducing outpatient prescribing costs. DICP. 1989;23:497-500.
Comparing clinical automated, medical record, and hybrid data sources for dia- [PMID: 2500784]
betes quality measures. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2002;28:555-65. [PMID: 64. Overhage JM, Perkins S, Tierney WM, McDonald CJ. Controlled trial of
12369158] direct physician order entry: effects on physicians’ time utilization in ambulatory
43. Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, Lloyd JF, Burke JP. Adverse drug primary care internal medicine practices. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2001;8:361-
events in hospitalized patients. Excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable 71. [PMID: 11418543]
mortality. JAMA. 1997;277:301-6. [PMID: 9002492] 65. Kuperman GJ, Teich JM, Bates DW, Hiltz FL, Hurley JM, Lee RY, et al.
44. Evans RS, Pestotnik SL, Classen DC, Bass SB, Burke JP. Prevention of Detecting alerts, notifying the physician, and offering action items: a comprehen-
adverse drug events through computerized surveillance. Proc Annu Symp Com- sive alerting system. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp. 1996:704-8. [PMID:
put Appl Med Care. 1992:437-41. [PMID: 1482913] 8947756]
45. Evans RS, Classen DC, Stevens LE, Pestotnik SL, Gardner RM, Lloyd JF, 66. Kuperman GJ, Teich JM, Tanasijevic MJ, Ma’Luf N, Rittenberg E, Jha A,
et al. Using a hospital information system to assess the effects of adverse drug et al. Improving response to critical laboratory results with automation: results of
events. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1993:161-5. [PMID: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999;6:512-22. [PMID:
8130454] 10579608]
46. Evans RS, Larsen RA, Burke JP, Gardner RM, Meier FA, Jacobson JA, et 67. Pizziferri L, Kittler AF, Volk LA, Honour MM, Gupta S, Wang S, et al.
al. Computer surveillance of hospital-acquired infections and antibiotic use. Primary care physician time utilization before and after implementation of an
JAMA. 1986;256:1007-11. [PMID: 3735626] electronic health record: a time-motion study. J Biomed Inform. 2005;38:176-
47. Chertow GM, Lee J, Kuperman GJ, Burdick E, Horsky J, Seger DL, et al. 88. [PMID: 15896691]
Guided medication dosing for inpatients with renal insufficiency. JAMA. 2001; 68. Wong DH, Gallegos Y, Weinger MB, Clack S, Slagle J, Anderson CT.
286:2839-44. [PMID: 11735759] Changes in intensive care unit nurse task activity after installation of a third-
48. Bates DW, Teich JM, Lee J, Seger D, Kuperman GJ, Ma’Luf N, et al. The generation intensive care unit information system. Crit Care Med.
impact of computerized physician order entry on medication error prevention. J 2003;31:2488-94. [PMID: 14530756]
Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999;6:313-21. [PMID: 10428004] 69. Pierpont GL, Thilgen D. Effect of computerized charting on nursing activity
49. Bates DW, Leape LL, Cullen DJ, Laird N, Petersen LA, Teich JM, et al. in intensive care. Crit Care Med. 1995;23:1067-73. [PMID: 7774218]
Effect of computerized physician order entry and a team intervention on preven- 70. Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, Burke JP. Computerized surveillance
tion of serious medication errors. JAMA. 1998;280:1311-6. [PMID: 9794308] of adverse drug events in hospital patients. JAMA. 1991;266:2847-51. [PMID:
50. Mullett CJ, Evans RS, Christenson JC, Dean JM. Development and impact 1942452]
of a computerized pediatric antiinfective decision support program. Pediatrics. 71. Bates DW, Kuperman GJ, Jha A, Teich JM, Orav EJ, Ma’luf N, et al. Does
2001;108:E75. [PMID: 11581483] the computerized display of charges affect inpatient ancillary test utilization? Arch
51. Evans RS, Pestotnik SL, Classen DC, Burke JP. Evaluation of a computer- Intern Med. 1997;157:2501-8. [PMID: 9385303]
assisted antibiotic-dose monitor. Ann Pharmacother. 1999;33:1026-31. [PMID: 72. Khoury AT. Support of quality and business goals by an ambulatory auto-
10534212] mated medical record system in Kaiser Permanente of Ohio. Eff Clin Pract.
52. Evans RS, Pestotnik SL, Classen DC, Clemmer TP, Weaver LK, Orme JF 1998;1:73-82. [PMID: 10187226]
Jr, et al. A computer-assisted management program for antibiotics and other 73. Garr DR, Ornstein SM, Jenkins RG, Zemp LD. The effect of routine use of
antiinfective agents. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:232-8. [PMID: 9435330] computer-generated preventive reminders in a clinical practice. Am J Prev Med.
53. White KS, Lindsay A, Pryor TA, Brown WF, Walsh K. Application of a 1993;9:55-61. [PMID: 8439440]
computerized medical decision-making process to the problem of digoxin intox- 74. Ornstein SM, Garr DR, Jenkins RG, Musham C, Hamadeh G, Lancaster
ication. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1984;4:571-6. [PMID: 6381570] C. Implementation and evaluation of a computer-based preventive services sys-
54. Tierney WM, McDonald CJ, Hui SL, Martin DK. Computer predictions tem. Fam Med. 1995;27:260-6. [PMID: 7797005]
of abnormal test results. Effects on outpatient testing. JAMA. 1988;259:1194-8. 75. Schriger DL, Baraff LJ, Rogers WH, Cretin S. Implementation of clinical
[PMID: 3339821] guidelines using a computer charting system. Effect on the initial care of health
55. Tierney WM, McDonald CJ, Martin DK, Rogers MP. Computerized dis- care workers exposed to body fluids. JAMA. 1997;278:1585-90. [PMID:
play of past test results. Effect on outpatient testing. Ann Intern Med. 1987;107: 9370504]
569-74. [PMID: 3631792] 76. Schriger DL, Baraff LJ, Buller K, Shendrikar MA, Nagda S, Lin EJ, et al.
56. Tierney WM, Miller ME, McDonald CJ. The effect on test ordering of Implementation of clinical guidelines via a computer charting system: effect on
informing physicians of the charges for outpatient diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med. the care of febrile children less than three years of age. J Am Med Inform Assoc.
1990;322:1499-504. [PMID: 2186274] 2000;7:186-95. [PMID: 10730602]
57. Tierney WM, Miller ME, Overhage JM, McDonald CJ. Physician inpatient 77. Safran C, Rind DM, Davis RB, Ives D, Sands DZ, Currier J, et al. Guide-
order writing on microcomputer workstations. Effects on resource utilization. lines for management of HIV infection with computer-based patient’s record.
JAMA. 1993;269:379-83. [PMID: 8418345] Lancet. 1995;346:341-6. [PMID: 7623532]
58. Wilson GA, McDonald CJ, McCabe GP Jr. The effect of immediate access 78. Day F, Hoang LP, Ouk S, Nagda S, Schriger DL. The impact of a guide-
to a computerized medical record on physician test ordering: a controlled clinical line-driven computer charting system on the emergency care of patients with
trial in the emergency room. Am J Public Health. 1982;72:698-702. [PMID: acute low back pain. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1995:576-80.
7046482] [PMID: 8563351]
59. Chen P, Tanasijevic MJ, Schoenenberger RA, Fiskio J, Kuperman GJ, 79. Simon GE, VonKorff M, Rutter C, Wagner E. Randomised trial of moni-
Bates DW. A computer-based intervention for improving the appropriateness of toring, feedback, and management of care by telephone to improve treatment of
antiepileptic drug level monitoring. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;119:432-8. [PMID: depression in primary care. BMJ. 2000;320:550-4. [PMID: 10688563]
12645347] 80. Baird TK, Broekemeier RL, Anderson MW. Effectiveness of a computer-
60. Bates DW, Kuperman GJ, Rittenberg E, Teich JM, Fiskio J, Ma’luf N, et supported refill reminder system. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1984;41:2395-7. [PMID:
al. A randomized trial of a computer-based intervention to reduce utilization of 6507445]
redundant laboratory tests. Am J Med. 1999;106:144-50. [PMID: 10230742] 81. Sanders DL, Miller RA. The effects on clinician ordering patterns of a
61. Shojania KG, Yokoe D, Platt R, Fiskio J, Ma’luf N, Bates DW. Reducing computerized decision support system for neuroradiology imaging studies. Proc
vancomycin use utilizing a computer guideline: results of a randomized controlled AMIA Symp. 2001:583-7. [PMID: 11825254]
trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1998;5:554-62. [PMID: 9824802] 82. Potts AL, Barr FE, Gregory DF, Wright L, Patel NR. Computerized phy-

sician order entry and medication errors in a pediatric critical care unit. Pediatrics. sociotechnical design: experiences with an electronic patient record in a clinical
2004;113:59-63. [PMID: 14702449] context. Int J Med Inform. 1998;52:243-51. [PMID: 9848421]
83. Wells BJ, Lobel KD, Dickerson LM. Using the electronic medical record to 97. Wang SJ, Middleton B, Prosser LA, Bardon CG, Spurr CD, Carchidi PJ,
enhance the use of combination drugs. Am J Med Qual. 2003;18:147-9. [PMID: et al. A cost-benefit analysis of electronic medical records in primary care. Am J
12934950] Med. 2003;114:397-403. [PMID: 12714130]
84. Khoury A. Finding value in EMRs (electronic medical records). Health 98. Kaushal R, Shojania KG, Bates DW. Effects of computerized physician
Manag Technol. 1997;18:34, 36. [PMID: 10169803] order entry and clinical decision support systems on medication safety: a system-
85. Chin HL, Wallace P. Embedding guidelines into direct physician order atic review. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:1409-16. [PMID: 12824090]
entry: simple methods, powerful results. Proc AMIA Symp. 1999:221-5. [PMID: 99. Bennett JW, Glasziou PP. Computerised reminders and feedback in medi-
10566353] cation management: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Med J
86. Garrido T, Jamieson L, Zhou Y, Wiesenthal A, Liang L. Effect of electronic Aust. 2003;178:217-22. [PMID: 12603185]
health records in ambulatory care: retrospective, serial, cross sectional study. BMJ. 100. Garg AX, Adhikari NK, McDonald H, Rosas-Arellano MP, Devereaux PJ,
2005;330:581. [PMID: 15760999] Beyene J, et al. Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on
87. Krall MA. Acceptance and performance by clinicians using an ambulatory practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA.
electronic medical record in an HMO. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med 2005;293:1223-38. [PMID: 15755945]
Care. 1995:708-11. [PMID: 8563380] 101. Mitchell E, Sullivan F. A descriptive feast but an evaluative famine: system-
88. Rollman BL, Hanusa BH, Gilbert T, Lowe HJ, Kapoor WN, Schulberg atic review of published articles on primary care computing during 1980-97.
HC. The electronic medical record. A randomized trial of its impact on primary
BMJ. 2001;322:279-82. [PMID: 11157532]
care physicians’ initial management of major depression [corrected]. Arch Intern
102. Frist B, Clinton H. How to heal health care. Washington Post. 25 August
Med. 2001;161:189-97. [PMID: 11176732]
2004:A17.
89. Rollman BL, Hanusa BH, Lowe HJ, Gilbert T, Kapoor WN, Schulberg
103. S.1262: Health Technology to Enhance Quality Act. 2005.
HC. A randomized trial using computerized decision support to improve treat-
104. S.1418: A bill to enhance the adoption of a nationwide inter operable health
ment of major depression in primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17:493-503.
information technology system and to improve the quality and reduce the costs of
[PMID: 12133139]
health care in the United States. 2005.
90. Mekhjian HS, Kumar RR, Kuehn L, Bentley TD, Teater P, Thomas A, et
al. Immediate benefits realized following implementation of physician order entry 105. S.1355: A bill to enhance the adoption of health information technology
at an academic medical center. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002;9:529-39. [PMID: and to improve the quality and reduce the costs of healthcare in the United
12223505] States. 2005.
91. Cordero L, Kuehn L, Kumar RR, Mekhjian HS. Impact of computerized 106. Leapfrog Group. Purchasing Principles. Accessed at www.leapfroggroup.org
physician order entry on clinical practice in a newborn intensive care unit. J /for_members/what_does_it_mean/purchasing_principals on 17 March 2006.
Perinatol. 2004;24:88-93. [PMID: 14872207] 107. Miller RH, Sim I. Physicians’ use of electronic medical records: barriers and
92. Kilgore ML, Flint D, Pearce R. The varying impact of two clinical informa- solutions. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;23:116-26. [PMID: 15046136]
tion systems in a cardiovascular intensive care unit. J Cardiovasc Manag. 1998; 108. Poon EG, Blumenthal D, Jaggi T, Honour MM, Bates DW, Kaushal R.
9:31-5. [PMID: 10178729] Overcoming barriers to adopting and implementing computerized physician or-
93. Koppel R, Metlay JP, Cohen A, Abaluck B, Localio AR, Kimmel SE, et al. der entry systems in U.S. hospitals. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;23:184-90.
Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication [PMID: 15318579]
errors. JAMA. 2005;293:1197-203. [PMID: 15755942] 109. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, et al.
94. Aarts J, Doorewaard H, Berg M. Understanding implementation: the case of Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CON-
a computerized physician order entry system in a large Dutch university medical SORT statement. JAMA. 1996;276:637-9. [PMID: 8773637]
center. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004;11:207-16. [PMID: 14764612] 110. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improv-
95. Berg M. Patient care information systems and health care work: a sociotech- ing the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the
nical approach. Int J Med Inform. 1999;55:87-101. [PMID: 10530825] QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999;
96. Berg M, Langenberg C, vd Berg I, Kwakkernaat J. Considerations for 354:1896-900. [PMID: 10584742]

Annals of Internal Medicine
Current Author Addresses: Dr. Chaudhry: Division of General Internal Drs. Wu, Mojica, and Shekelle, Ms. Maglione, and Ms. Roth: RAND
Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, 911 Broxton Avenue, Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401.
2nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90095. Dr. Morton: RTI International, 3040 Cornwallis Road, Research Trian-
Dr. Wang: Cedars-Sinai Health System, 8700 Beverly Boulevard, Los gle Park, NC 27709.
Angeles, CA 90048.
W-168 16 May 2006 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 144 • Number 10 www.annals.org

www.annals.org
Appendix Table 1. Benchmark Leaders in Health Information Technology Research*
Study, Year (Reference), Institution Data Primary HIT Setting Purpose (To Determine the Dimensions Effect Key Finding
Type of Study Collection Intervention Effect of . . .) of Care End Evaluated
(n ⴝ 54) Points
Quality adherence
(n ⴝ 20)
Dexter et al., Regenstrief Institute 1998–1999 DS/EHR Inpatient Computer-based standing Effectiveness Adherence/ 12–percentage point absolute increase (from

2004 (18), RCT orders vs. computerized surveillance 30% to 42%) in influenza vaccinations
physician reminders and 20–percentage point absolute increase
(from 31% to 51%) in pneumococcal
vaccinations in the standing-orders group;
computer identified 50% and 22% of
hospitalized patients as eligible for
influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations,
respectively; 19% and 7% of patients
screened by computer as eligible for
influenza and pneumococcal vaccines
stated that they had previously been
vaccinated and did not require another
vaccination (data from outside facilities not
present in evaluated system)
Dexter et al., Regenstrief Institute NS DS/EHR Outpatient Computer-generated, Effectiveness Adherence 20–percentage point absolute increase (from
1998 (19), RCT paper-based reminders on 4% to 24%) in physicians who discussed
planning for end-of-life advance directives; 11–percentage point
care vs. usual care (no absolute increase (from 4% to 15%) in
reminder) physicians caring for patients who
completed advanced care plans
Overhage et al., Regenstrief Institute 1992–1993 DS/CPOE Inpatient Point-of-care computerized Effectiveness/ Adherence 24–percentage point absolute increase (from
1997 (20), RCT reminders on adherence efficiency 22% to 46%) in adherence to guidelines;
to guideline-based care vs. adherence increased for immediate, 24-h,
usual care (CPOE without and total hospital stays; little increase
evaluated reminders) between immediate and 24-h adherence;
33% relative decrease (from 156 to 105)
in number of pharmacist interventions; no
statistically significant difference in costs or
length of stay
Continued on following page
16 May 2006 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 144 • Number 10 W-169

Appendix Table 1—Continued
(n ⴝ 54) Points
Overhage et al., Regenstrief Institute 1992–1993 DS/EHR Inpatient Computer-generated Effectiveness Adherence No statistically significant effect
1996 (21), RCT reminders on use of demonstrated; high adherence to
preventive care services reminders was anticipated but not
vs. usual care demonstrated, and no mechanism to
capture reasons for nonadherence was
incorporated
Litzelman et al., Regenstrief Institute 1989 DS/EHR Outpatient Computerized reminders of Effectiveness Adherence In group requiring acknowledgment,
1993 (22), RCT preventive care; 12–percentage point absolute increase

comparison was between (from 49% to 61%) in fecal occult blood
requiring physicians to testing and 7–percentage point absolute
acknowledge the reminder increase (from 47% to 54%) in
vs. using reminder alone mammography; no statistically significant
improvement in Papanicolaou screening
McDonald et al., Regenstrief Institute 1978–1981 DS Outpatient Computer-generated, Effectiveness Adherence 12%–18% absolute increase (15.6%–29.5%
1992 (23), RCT paper-based reminders on in year 3) in influenza vaccination rates
need for influenza
vaccination vs. no
computer-based reminders
W-170 16 May 2006 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 144 • Number 10

Tierney et al. (24), Regenstrief Institute 1983–1984 DS/data Outpatient Three interventions on Effectiveness Adherence Approximate absolute effects of
1986, RCT summary/ preventive health: 1) computerized reminders: 33–percentage
EHR computer-generated, point absolute increase (from 25% to
paper-based reminders 58%) in fecal occult blood testing,
provided each visit; 2) 33–percentage point absolute increase
computer-generated, (from 5% to 38%) in pneumococcal
paper-based care vaccination, 16–percentage point absolute
summaries generated increase (8% to 24%) in screening
monthly; and 3) usual mammography, and 12–percentage point
care absolute increase (from 12% to 24%) in
metronidazole for trichomonas infections; 9
other preventive care processes evaluated
showed no statistically or clinically
significant improvement with reminders;
effects of reminders were greater than
those of the summary reports
McDonald et al., Regenstrief Institute 1978–1980 DS/EHR Outpatient Computer-generated, Effectiveness/ Adherence 15%–20% increase in adherence to
1984 (25), CCT paper-based reminders on efficiency protocol-based care; greatest increases
adherence to seen in preventive care (relative increase in
protocol-based care vs. utilization, 200%–400%); information
usual care (no reminders) other than laboratory and pharmacy data
entered by research assistants; computer
system did not capture all patient data
www.annals.org
www.annals.org
(n ⴝ 54) Points
McDonald et al., Regenstrief Institute NS DS/EHR Outpatient Computer-generated, Effectiveness Adherence/ 19–percentage point absolute increase (from
1980 (26), CCT paper-based reminders medical 19.8% to 38.4%) in adherence to
with and without errors protocol-based care; minimal learning
literature citations on effects were seen when the computerized
adherence to reminders were turned off
protocol-based care vs.
usual care

McDonald, 1976 (27), Regenstrief Institute NS DS/EHR Outpatient Computer-generated, Effectiveness/ Adherence/ 15–percentage point increase (from 11% to
RCT paper-based reminders on safety/ medication 36% and from 13% to 28%) in adherence
adherence to efficiency errors to protocols; computer systems could not
protocol-based care for capture all laboratory data kept in paper
diabetes chart; physicians agreed with a maximum
of 57% of computer recommendations;
most reminders related to medication care;
cost $2/visit to maintain computer record
McDonald, 1976 (28), Regenstrief Institute 1975 DS/EHR Outpatient Computer-generated, Effectiveness/ Adherence/ 29–percentage point absolute increase (from
RCT paper-based reminders on safety medication 22% to 51%) in adherence to protocols;
adherence to errors computer system could not capture all
protocol-based care laboratory data kept in paper chart; most
reminders related to medication-based care
Kucher et al., Partners Health 2000–2004 DS/CPOE Inpatient Computerized alerts for Effectiveness Adherence/ 3.3–percentage point absolute decrease
2005 (29), CCT Care anticoagulation surveillance (from 8.2% to 4.9%) in the combined
prophylaxis vs. usual care primary end point of deep venous
for prevention of venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism within
thromboembolism in 90 d after hospitalization; 19–percentage
high-risk hospitalized point absolute increase (from 33.5% to
patients 14.5%) in use of anticoagulation
prophylaxis; as part of intervention, a
computer-based risk assessment program
was used to screen and identify inpatients
at high risk for venous thromboembolism;
80% of patients enrolled had some type of
cancer
Abookire et al., Partners Health 1995–1999 DS/CPOE Inpatient Trends in alerts and Safety/ Adherence 24–percentage point absolute reduction
2000 (30), Care physician response to effectiveness (from 51% to 27%) in adherence to
time-series study alerts ⬙definite⬙ medication allergy alerts and
26–percentage point absolute reduction in
adherence (from 46% to 20%) to
⬙possible⬙ allergy alerts over 4 y; adherence
decreased as number of alerts increased

(n ⴝ 54) Points
Teich et al., 2000 Brigham and 1993 CPOE/DS Inpatient CPOE on physician Effectiveness/ Adherence 66–percentage point absolute increase (from
(31), pre–post Women’s prescribing practices and safety 15.6% to 81.3%) in formulary adherence

study Hospital/Partners adherence to medication for gastric H2-blockers; 23–percentage
Health Care formularies point absolute increase (from 24% to
47%) in appropriate use of subcutaneous
heparin prophylaxis; 1.5–percentage point
absolute decrease (from 2.1% to 0.6%) in
number of medication doses written that
exceeded maximum recommended
(⬙possibly because of increased use of
order sets⬙); effects persisted at 1- and 2-y
follow-up; cost savings from H2-blocker,

$250 000; costs to maintain system,
$700 000/y
Cannon and Allen VA 1998 DS/EHR Outpatient Guideline-based Effectiveness Adherence 25.5–percentage point absolute increase
2000 (32), RCT computerized vs. manual (from 61% to 86.5%) in physician
paper-based reminders on screening for mood disorders with
screening rates for mood computerized system
disorders
Demakis et al., VA 1995–1996 DS/EHR Outpatient Computerized reminders on Effectiveness Adherence 5.3–percentage point absolute increase (from
2000 (33), RCT physician adherence to 53.5% to 58.8%) in adherence to
ambulatory care recommended care; 5 of 13 examined care
recommendations vs. processes improved; effect of reminders
usual care (EHR without decreased over time
hypertension reminders)
Rossi and Every, VA 1996 DS Outpatient Computer-generated, Effectiveness Adherence 11.3–percentage point absolute increase
1997 (34), RCT paper-based reminders on (from ⬍1% to 11.3%) in appropriate
adherence to appropriate hypertension treatment
care for hypertension
treatment vs. usual care
(no reminders)
Willson et al., LDS Hospital/ 1994–NS DS Inpatient Computerized guidelines for Effectiveness Adherence 5–percentage point absolute decrease (from
1995 (35), pre–post Intermountain prevention and treatment 7% to 2%) in ulcer development
study Health Care of pressure ulcers
www.annals.org
www.annals.org
(n ⴝ 54) Points
Evans et al., LDS Hospital/ 1990 DS/EHR Inpatient Computerized guidelines on Effectiveness Adherence Computer program suggested correct
1994 (36), RCT Intermountain appropriateness of antibiotic in 94% of cases; 17–percentage
Health Care antibiotic use point absolute increase (from 77% to
94%) in coverage of identified organism;
27% relative decrease (from 22 to 16 h) in
time to appropriate treatment after culture
results; 21% relative decrease (from
$51.93 to $41.08) in antibiotic cost;

physicians ordered appropriate antibiotics
within 12 h of culture collection
significantly more often with use of
program compared with usual care; 88%
of physicians would recommend the
program to other physicians, 85% said the
program improved antibiotic selection, and
81% said use improved care
Larsen et al., LDS Hospital/ 1985–1986 DS Inpatient Computerized reminders on Effectiveness Adherence 0.4–percentage point absolute decrease
1989 (37), pre–post Intermountain appropriateness of (from 1.1% to 0.7%) in total
study Health Care preoperative antibiotics postoperative wound infections;
and on rates of 0.9–percentage point absolute decrease
postoperative wound (from 1.8% to 0.9%) in wound infections
infections among patients with general indication for
antibiotic prophylaxis; 18–percentage point
increase (from 40% to 58%) in
appropriateness of antibiotic timing
Surveillance (n ⴝ 10)
Overhage et al., Regenstrief Institute 2000–2001 Electronic Outpatient Electronic laboratory Access/ Surveillance 29–percentage point increase (from 71% to
2001 (38), results reporting on public health effectiveness 100%) in identified cases during a
case–control study reporting surveillance shigellosis outbreak; 2.5-d decrease in
reporting time
Honigman et al., Brigham and 1995–1996 EHR Outpatient Computer program to Safety Surveillance Sensitivity for ADEs, 58%; specificity, 88%;
2001 (39), cohort Women’s retrospectively detect ADE rate was 5.5/100 patients; 9% of
study Hospital/Partners ADEs vs. chart review outpatient ADEs required hospitalization
Health Care
Jha et al., 1998 (40), Brigham and 1995 Data Inpatient Three interventions for Safety Surveillance Computerized monitoring identified 45% of
case series Women’s summary/ identifying adverse drug ADEs; chart review identified 65%;
Hospital/Partners CPOE events: 1) computer voluntary reporting identified 4%;
Health Care monitoring, 2) chart computer was better for ADEs related to
review, and 3) voluntary quantitative changes (e.g., laboratory
reporting values) and chart review was better for
ADEs related only to symptoms; voluntary
reporting was better for potential ADEs
that had not yet occurred

(n ⴝ 54) Points
Kramer et al., VA 1999–2000 Electronic data Outpatient Automated data collection Effectiveness Surveillance High false-positive rate for diagnosis via
2003 (41), case collection/ algorithms vs. manual automated algorithms; quality indicator
series EHR review of EHRs by trained scores based solely on automated data
abstracters on diagnosing show agreement with manual review, but
new cases of depression results may show some bias
Kerr et al., 2002 (42), VA 1999–2000 Electronic data Mixed Automated queries of Effectiveness Surveillance Automated queries from disease registries

case series collection/ computerized disease underestimated rates of completion for
EHR registries vs. manual chart quality-of-care process indicators; no
abstraction (mixed EHR differences were noted for intermediate
and paper chart sources) outcome measures; automated queries
on measuring quality of were less labor-intensive
care
Classen et al., LDS Hospital/ 1990–1993 Data Inpatient Computer surveillance to Efficiency Surveillance Computer system was used to screen 91 574
1997 (43), case– Intermountain summary/ identify ADEs and admissions for ADEs; 2.43 ADEs/100
control study Health Care DS/EHR associated costs admissions; 2.45–absolute percentage
point increase (from 1.05% to 3.5%) in

crude mortality associated with ADEs;
1.9-d increase in attributable length of stay
and associated $2262 increase in costs
Evans et al., LDS Hospital/ 1989–1992 Data Inpatient Computerized surveillance Safety Surveillance 2.36–percentage point absolute increase
1992 (44), Intermountain summary/ vs. manual reporting on (from 0.04% to 2.4%) in identified ADEs;
case–control study Health Care EHR identifying and preventing alerting system implemented in year 2 in
ADEs which pharmacists received surveillance
reports and contacted physicians; severe
ADEs decreased 5.4 percentage points
(from 7.6% to 2.2%); ADEs due to
allergies decreased 13.6 percentage points
(from 15% to 1.4%); analysis of ADE
database allowed authors to design
reduction initiatives that decreased
significant ADEs from 56 events in year 1
to 8 events in year 3
Evans et al., LDS Hospital/ 1990–1992 Data Inpatient Computerized surveillance Safety/ Surveillance/ Computer system was used to screen the
1993 (45), Intermountain summary/ on determining efficiency medication records of 60 836 inpatients; 1348 ADEs
case–control Health Care DS/EHR attributable effect of ADEs errors were identified in 1209 patients; those
on hospital length of stay with ADEs were matched to a total of
and costs 10 542 control patients; ADEs were
associated with an attributable increase in
length of stay of 1.9 d and increase in
attributable costs of $1939
www.annals.org
www.annals.org
(n ⴝ 54) Points
Classen et al., 1991 LDS Hospital/ 1989–1990 DS/EHR Inpatient Computer surveillance vs. Safety Surveillance/ 36 653 patients were monitored for ADEs
(70), case series Intermountain usual care (paper-based medication over 18 mo; 731 ADEs were detected in
Health Care ADE reporting) to errors 648 patients by using the computer system
determine rates of ADEs while over the same period only 9 ADEs
were detected with the standard
paper-based incident reports; 641 ADEs were
detected through computer algorithms and

other automated methods, and 90 were
detected through the voluntary
computer-based reporting system; 101 ADEs
were severe and 600 were moderate; 52
hospital admissions were due to ADEs;
computer-based ADE surveillance was done
daily Monday through Friday and took on
average “two hours a day”; in 75% of
verified ADE cases, the medication was
withdrawn only when study personnel
alerted physicians to the presence of the
ADE
Evans et al., LDS Hospital/ 1984 Data Inpatient Computer vs. manual Safety Surveillance 14–percentage point absolute increase (from
1986 (46), cohort Intermountain summary/ surveillance for assessing 76% to 90%) in identification of
study Health Care EHR rates of hospital-acquired infections; 65% decrease (from 130 to 46
infections and associated h) in time required for surveillance;
antibiotic use 4–percentage point absolute increase (from
19% to 23%) in false-positive rates with
the computer; computer screening
identified patients receiving antibiotics to
which infections were resistant, antibiotics
with less expensive alternatives, and
patients receiving prophylactic antibiotics
for longer than necessary
Medication errors
(n ⴝ 7)
Chertow et al., Brigham and 1997–1998 DS/CPOE Inpatient Computerized drug dosing Efficiency/ Medication 21–percentage point absolute increase (from
2001 (47), CCT Women’s algorithm to determine effectiveness errors/ 30% to 51%) in appropriate medication
Hospital/Partners effect on medication adherence orders (dosing levels or dosing frequency);
Health Care prescribing in renal 4.5% reduction (from 4.5 to 4.3 d) in
insufficiency vs. usual care length of stay; no statistically significant
(CPOE without algorithm) decrease in costs
Bates et al., Brigham and 1992–1997 CPOE/DS Inpatient CPOE with enhanced DS on Safety Medication 86% relative reduction (from 7.6
1999 (48), Women’s rates of nonmissed dose errors events/1000 patient-days to 1.1
time-series study Hospital/Partners errors and overall events/1000 patient-days) in
Health Care noninterrupted serious nonintercepted serious medication errors;
medication error rates 82% relative reduction (from 142
events/1000 patient-days to 26.6
events/1000 patient-days) in nonmissed
dose errors; reductions seen for all error
types; level of DS in system increased over
time

(n ⴝ 54) Points
Bates et al., Brigham and 1993–1995 CPOE/DS Inpatient CPOE on rates of Safety Medication 55% relative risk reduction (from 10.7
1998 (49), Women’s medication errors and errors events/1000 patient-days to 4.9
time-series study Hospital/Partners preventable ADEs vs. events/1000 patient-days) in
Health Care CPOE with addition of nonintercepted serious medication errors;
team changes non–statistically significant 17% relative
reduction (from 4.69/1000 patient-days to
3.86/1000 patient-days) in preventable

ADEs; decreases seen for all levels of error
severity; team changes conferred no
additional benefit over CPOE
Mullett et al., LDS Hospital/ 1998–1999 DS/EHR Pediatric ICU Computerized guidelines on Effectiveness/ Medication 32% relative decrease (from 15.8 to 10.8) in
2001 (50), pre–post Intermountain antibiotic appropriateness efficiency errors/ number of days that antibiotics were
study Health Care and use adherence prescribed outside the recommended
dosing range; 59% relative decrease in a
composite measure of need for pharmacist
interventions for incorrect dosing;
6.3–percentage point absolute increase

(from 60.2% to 66.5%) in proportion of
ICU patients receiving antibiotics; no
statistically significant differences in overall
antibiotic costs; weighted antibiotic-cost
statistic showed decrease in costs
Evans et al., LDS Hospital/ 1993–1996 DS/EHR Inpatient Computerized monitoring of Safety Medication 0.6–percentage point absolute decrease
1999 (51), pre–post Intermountain antibiotic doses on errors/ (from 0.9% to 0.3%) in
study Health Care appropriateness of dosing utilization antibiotic-associated ADEs; 6% relative
and ADE rates of care decrease (from 50% to 40%) in patients
receiving excess antibiotic doses for ⱖ1 d;
12% relative decrease (from 10.1 to 8.9
doses) in number of antibiotic doses
prescribed and 13% relative decrease in
cost (from $92.96 to $80.62); excess
dosing was associated with increased ADE
rates
Evans et al., LDS Hospital/ 1992–1995 DS/EHR Inpatient Computerized alerts on Effectiveness/ Medication Compared with the 2-y preintervention
1998 (52), cohort Intermountain (ICU) antibiotic use efficiency/ errors/ period, reductions were seen for the
study with historical Health Care safety adherence following: antibiotic-associated ADEs (28
control vs. 4), mismatches between infection
susceptibility and antibiotic (206 vs. 12
episodes), ordered drugs for which a
patient had an allergy (146 vs. 35
episodes), days of excess dosing (from 5.9
to 2.7 d), antibiotic costs (from $340 to
$102), length of stay (from 13 to 10 d),
and total hospital costs (from $35 283 to
$26 315)
www.annals.org
www.annals.org
(n ⴝ 54) Points
White et al., LDS Hospital/ NS DS Inpatient Computer-generated, Safety Medication 2.8-fold increase in withholding digoxin on
1984 (53), RCT Intermountain paper-based alert system errors day alert was signaled; 2.7-fold increase in
Health Care on digoxin toxicity testing of serum digoxin levels in response
to alerts; overall, 22% increase in physician
actions in response to digoxin-related
events (unweighted event rates in study
groups not provided)
Efficiency: utilization of

care (n ⴝ 11)
Tierney et al., Regenstrief 1984–1985 DS/CPOE Outpatient Computer program that Efficiency Utilization of 8.8% decrease (from $12.27 to $11.18) in
1988 (54), RCT generates and displays care diagnostic test costs per patient visit;
pretest probabilities for greatest decrease was due to reduced
diagnostic tests on utilization of complete blood counts and
utilization of care electrolytes (the 2 most common tests);
mean receiver-operating characteristic
curve for computer predictions, 0.80
Tierney et al., Regenstrief NS DS/CPOE/EHR Outpatient Computer program showing Efficiency Utilization of 8.5% decrease (from 0.56 to 0.51) in
1987 (55), pre–post previous test results as care number of tests ordered per visit; 13%
study physicians are ordering decrease (from $13.99 to $12.17) in test
new tests vs. usual care costs per visit; program took 4 s to display
(no display of previous past results on screen per test
test results)
Tierney et al., Regenstrief 1988 DS/CPOE/EHR Outpatient Effect of information on Efficiency Utilization of 14.3% decrease (from 1.82 to 1.56) in
1990 (56), RCT point-of-care test costs on care number of diagnostic tests ordered per
utilization vs. usual care visit; 12.9% decrease (from $51.81 to
(CPOE without $45.13) in diagnostic test costs per visit;
information on test costs) effect was greatest for scheduled patient
visits
Tierney et al., Regenstrief 1990–1991 CPOE/EHR Inpatient CPOE on costs and Efficiency Utilization of 12.7% reduction (from $6964 to $6077) in
1993 (57), RCT utilization of health care care total costs per admission; statistically
significant decreases in hospital bed,
medication, and diagnostic test costs; 0.9-d
decrease (from 8.5 to 7.6 d) in length of
stay; 33-min increase in physician time
spent ordering tests
Wilson et al., Regenstrief NS EHR Emergency Computer-generated, Efficiency Utilization of Study interrupted by an interval
1982 (58), RCT department paper-based patient care programming error that prevented the
record summaries on previous 4–6 mo of a patient’s data from
utilization of care vs. usual being printed, thus dividing the study into
care (no care summaries) 2 time periods, T1 and T2; 18% decrease
(from 3.28 tests/visit to 2.23 tests/visit) in
tests ordered for medical visits during T1;
14% decrease (from $34.91 to $29.94) in
costs; non–statistically significant decrease
in tests ordered for surgical visits during
T1; no statistically significant difference in
utilization or costs during T2

Type of Study Collection Intervention Effect of . . .) of Care Evaluated
(n ⴝ 54) End
Points
Chen et al., Brigham and 1995–1999 DS/CPOE Inpatient Computerized reminders on Effectiveness/ Utilization of 27% decrease (53 of 200 total) in redundant
2003 (59), pre–post Women’s rates of inappropriate efficiency care laboratory tests of antiepileptic medication
study Hospital/Partners daily testing of levels; effect of reminders stable over 4 y
Health Care antiepileptic drug levels
Bates et al., Brigham and 1994 DS/CPOE Inpatient Computerized reminders on Efficiency Utilization of 24–percentage point absolute reduction
1999 (60), RCT Women’s use of laboratory tests, care (from 51% to 27%) in redundant tests;

Hospital/Partners redundant ordering, and 31% of reminders were overridden by
Health Care associated costs vs. usual physicians; 41% of overrides were justified;
care (CPOE without 56% of redundant tests ordered in
laboratory-related intervention group were not ordered via
reminders) computer; only 51% of redundant tests
ordered in control group were actually
performed; estimated cost savings,
$35 000/y (0.15% of total laboratory
expenditures)

Shojania et al., Brigham and 1996–1997 DS/CPOE Inpatient Point-of-care computerized Effectiveness Utilization of 32% relative decrease (from 16.7
1998 (61), RCT Women’s guidelines on antibiotic care orders/physician to 11.3 orders/physician)
Hospital/Partners use vs. usual care (CPOE in antibiotic orders; both initial and
Health Care without antibiotic DS) renewal order rates decreased
Bates et al., Brigham and 1993– DS/CPOE Inpatient Point-of-care display of test Efficiency Utilization of No statistically significant differences in
1997 (71), Women’s 1994 cost information for care number of tests ordered or diagnostic test
RCT/time-series Hospital/Partners laboratory and radiology costs were found; tests did not have to be
study Health Care test vs. usual care (CPOE ordered via the CPOE system; only 53% of
without test cost laboratory tests and 74% of radiology tests
information) were found to have an associated order in
the computer system
Fihn et al., VA NS Administrative/ Outpatient Computerized scheduling Safety/ Utilization of Approximate 6-d increase (from 25 to 31 d)
1994 (62), RCT DS system on follow-up time access/ care/ in follow-up appointment interval; no
for anticoagulation effectiveness medication statistically significant differences in
monitoring vs. usual care errors anticoagulation levels or complication rates
Steele et al., VA 1987–1988 Data Outpatient Computer-generated, Efficiency Utilization of No statistically significant differences in costs
1989 (63), RCT summary/DS paper-based feedback of care were found with computer-based system
medication costs vs. vs. pharmacist counseling
in-person pharmacist
counseling on physician
prescribing costs
Efficiency: time (n ⴝ 6)
Overhage et al., Regenstrief 1996–1998 CPOE/EHR Outpatient CPOE on physician time Efficiency Time 6.2% increase (from 34.2 to 36.3 min) in
2001 (64), RCT, utilization utilization physician time per clinic visit; physicians
time-motion study continued to use paper despite CPOE,
thereby duplicating tasks; with experience
there was a non–statistically significant
decrease in physician time of
approximately 10% (3.7 min) per clinic
visit
www.annals.org
www.annals.org

(n ⴝ 54) Points
Kuperman et al., Brigham and 1995–1996 DS Inpatient Computerized alerts sent via Safety/ Time to Physicians responded to 70% of alerts (1214
1996 (65), Women’s pager on physician effectiveness utilization/ of 1730 alerts) and immediately placed
cross-sectional Hospital/Partners response to serious clinical response orders in response to 39% of answered
analysis Health Care events alerts; physicians responded to 82.5% of
answered alerts (1002 of 1214) in ⬍ 15
min
Kuperman et al., Brigham and 1994–1995 DS Inpatient Computerized alerts sent via Safety/ Time to 38% decrease (from 1.6 to 1.0 h) in median
1999 (66), RCT Women’s pager on physician effectiveness care/safety time until treatment ordered; 11%
Hospital/Partners response time to critical decrease in mean time (from 4.6 to 4.1 h)
Health Care laboratory results until treatment; no statistically significant
decrease in ADEs
Pizziferri et al., Brigham and 2001–2003 EHR Outpatient EHR use on physician time Efficiency Time 0.5-min decrease (from 27.55 to 27.05 min)
2005 (67), Women’s utilization in clinic utilization in clinic visit time; physicians felt EHRs
pre–post, Hospital/Partners improved quality, access, and
time-motion study Health Care communication but negatively affected
workload
Wong et al., VA NS EHR Inpatient Computerized Efficiency Time 10.9–percentage point absolute decrease
2003 (68), (ICU) documentation on nursing utilization (from 35.1% to 24.2%) in documentation
pre–post, time utilization time; 8.8–percentage point absolute
time-motion study increase (from 31.3% to 40.1%) in time
spent on direct patient care
Pierpont and Thilgen, VA NS EHR Inpatient Effect of computerized Efficiency Time 7–percentage point absolute decrease (from
1995 (69), pre–post (ICU) nursing documentation on utilization 17% to 10%) in charting time;
study ICU nurses’ time 3–percentage point decrease (from 7% to
utilization and workflow 4%) in data-gathering time; 10% of time
was spent at computer reviewing data; no
change in time spent in patients’ rooms
* ADE ⫽ adverse drug event; CCT ⫽ controlled clinical trial; CPOE ⫽ computerized provider order entry; DS ⫽ decision support; EHR ⫽ electronic health record; H2-blockers ⫽ histamine-2– blockers; HIT ⫽ health
information technology; ICU ⫽ intensive care unit; NS ⫽ not specified; RCT ⫽ randomized, controlled trial; VA ⫽ Department of Veterans Affairs.

Appendix Table 2. Other Institutions Researching Health Information Technology*
Study, Year Data Primary HIT Setting Purpose (To Determine the Dimensions of Care Effect Type of Institution Key Findings
(Reference), Type Collection Intervention Effect of . . .) End Points Evaluated
of Study
(n ⴝ 22)
Commercially
developed
systems
Adherence

Rollman et al., 1997–1998 DS/EHR (Logician, Outpatient Three interventions on screening Effectiveness Adherence Academic No statistically significant difference
2002 (89), MedicaLogic Corp.) for mood disorders and physi- in depression symptom scores or
RCT cian agreement with comput- delivery of recommended pro-
er-based diagnosis: 1) com- cesses of depression care for ei-
puter-generated, paper-based ther intervention group when
reminders for depression with compared with usual care
treatment recommendations;
2) computer-generated, pa-
per-based reminders with di-
agnosis information; on qual-

ity of depression care, and 3)
usual care
Utilization of care
Garrido et al., 2000–2004 EHR (EpiCare, Epic Outpatient EHR on adherence to recom- Effectiveness Adherence Kaiser Permanente No statistically significant difference
2005 (86), Systems Corp.) mended care and efficiency in depression symptom scores or
retrospective measures delivery of recommended pro-
time-series cesses of depression care for ei-
study ther intervention group when
compared with usual care
Chin and Wal- 1994–1997 EHR/DS (EpiCare, Epic Outpatient EHR with CPOE and DS on ad- Quality/ Utilization Kaiser Permanente 48% relative decrease (from 10.6
lace, Systems Corp.) herence to guideline-based effectiveness of care tests/1000 to 5.6 tests/1000) for
1999 (85), care for radiology services and upper gastrointestinal tract radi-
time-series medication use ology studies by year 4 after EHR
study implementation, with a 33–per-
centage point absolute increase
(from 55% to 88%) in adher-
ence to protocols for test order-
ing; 20% decrease in chest ra-
diographs ordered (years after
implementation and information
on relative or absolute decrease
not provided); 2.3–percentage
point absolute decrease (from
4.7% to 2.4%) in prescribing of
a nonformulary antidepressant by
year 2 after implementation
www.annals.org
www.annals.org
of Study
(n ⴝ 22)
Surveillance

Rollman et al., 1997–1999 DS/EHR (Logician, Outpatient Three interventions on quality of Effectiveness Surveillance Academic Three days after computer notifica-
2001 (88), RCT MedicaLogic Corp.) depression care: 1) computer- tion of possible mood disorder,
generated, paper-based re- 65% of physicians agreed with
minders for depression with computer-screened diagnosis,
treatment recommendations; 13% disagreed, and 23% were
2) computer-generated, pa- uncertain; no differences in treat-
per-based reminders with di- ment provided across guideline-
agnosis information alone; exposure condition
and 3) usual care
Time utilization/medication errors

Koppel et al., 2002– 2004 CPOE (Eclipsys Corp.) Inpatient CPOE in facilitating medication Safety Medication Academic CPOE facilitated 22 types of medi-
2005 (93), prescribing errors errors cation error risks; errors were
mixed quantita- classified as being due to 1) frag-
tive/qualitative mentation of data and failure to
descriptive integrate CPOE systems with
methods other hospital systems and 2)
flaws in human–machine inter-
face
Mekhjian et al. 2000 CPOE/DS (Invision24, Inpatient/ CPOE with electronic records for Efficiency Time utili- Academic 64% relative decrease (from 328 to
(90), 2002, Siemens Corp.) ICU medication administration on zation/ 111 min) in medication turn-
pre–post study care delivery time, workflow medica- around time; 43% relative de-
process, and costs tion crease (from 457 to 261 min) in
errors completion time for radiology
procedures; 25% relative de-
crease (from 31.3 to 23.4 min) in
reporting time for laboratory re-
sults; 11.3–percentage point ab-
solute decrease (from 11.3% to
0%) in transcription errors; 5%
relative decrease (from 3.91 to
3.71 d) in severity-adjusted
length of stay; no statistically
significant decreases in overall
cost

of Study
(n ⴝ 22)
Cordero et al., 2002 CPOE/DS (Invision24, Neonatal CPOE with DS on medication Safety/efficiency Medication Academic 13–percentage point absolute de-
2004 (91), Siemens Corp.) ICU errors and care delivery time errors/ crease (from 13% to 0%) in
pre–post in neonatal ICU time utili- medication dosing errors; 73%
study with zation relative decrease (from 10.5 to
retrospective 2.8 h) in turnaround time for 1
review medication (caffeine); 24% rela-
tive decrease (from 42 to 32
min) in radiology response time;

physician and staff training
started 4 wk before CPOE imple-
mentation; nurse leaders received
16 h of training, nurses and cleri-
cal staff received 8 h, and physi-
cians received 2–4 h; during im-
plementation, information
systems staff provided 24-h sup-
port

Kilgore et al., 1995–1996 EHR (CareVue 9000, ICU Two different nursing ICU infor- Efficiency Time utili- Academic Effect of computer systems on
1998 (92), Hewlett-Packard mation systems with CPOE zation nurse charting time was incon-
pre–post Corp.; PIN System, and results reporting on nurse clusive per authors because ICU
study Eclipsys Corp.) work patterns and costs patient census varied; staff satis-
faction was higher with CareVue
9000 than with PIN System be-
cause of interface ease and
greater support of workflow; ex-
pected net annual savings from
preferred system were estimated
at $320 359
Implementation
costs
Krall, 1995 (87), 1994 EHR (EpiCare, Epic Outpatient EHR use on workflow and atti- Efficiency Implemen- Kaiser Permanente Physicians took 30 d to return to
descriptive Systems Corp.) tudes tation baseline productivity levels (pa-
quantitative cost tient visits/d); 2-min increase in
study physician time per visit; physician
satisfaction with system increased
over time
Internally devel-
oped systems
Adherence
Khoury, 1998 1993–1997 EHR/DS Outpatient EHR with DS on adherence to Effectiveness/effi- Adherence Kaiser Permanente Adherence to guidelines improved
(72), time- guideline-based care ciency for 6 conditions; levels of im-
series study provement ranged from 4– to
52–percentage point absolute
increases in process of care deliv-
ery; estimated annual savings, $2
470 000 (cost of system develop-
ment not included)
www.annals.org
www.annals.org
of Study
(n ⴝ 22)
Ornstein et al., NS EHR/DS Outpatient EHR with computerized remind- Effectiveness Adherence Academic 7 of 7 counseling measures im-
1995 (74), ers on delivery of preventive proved: absolute increase in ad-
pre–post care herence ranging from 13 to 16
study percentage points; 10 of 15

screening processes improved:
absolute increase approximately
ranging from 3 to 20 percentage
points
Garr et al., 1989–1990 DS/EHR Outpatient EHR with computerized remind- Effectiveness Adherence Academic Absolute increases in delivery of
1993 (73), ers on delivery of preventive preventive care, 1–8 percentage
pre–post care points; all 5 services included
study
Safran et al., 1992–1993 EHR/DS Outpatient Computerized reminders and Effectiveness Adherence Academic Approximate 22–percentage point
1995 (77), alerts on delivery of HIV care absolute increase (from 46% to
CCT 68%) in adherence to recom-
mended process of care at 1 y
after occurrence of clinical event
warranting reminder; 29–per-
centage point absolute increase
(from 38% to 67%) in physician
responses 1 mo after clinical
event warranting alert
Schriger et al., 1992–1995 DS/EHR Emergency Computerized guidelines em- Effectiveness/effi- Adherence Academic 12–percentage point absolute in-
1997 (75), CCT depart- bedded in computerized ciency crease (from 83% to 96%) in
ment charting system designed to adherence to 5 treatment guide-
track 5 conditions on pro- lines; 20–percentage point abso-
cesses of care for exposure of lute increase (from 63% to 83%)
health care workers to bodily in adherence to 4 guidelines on
fluids laboratory test use; 62–percent-
age point absolute increase (from
31% to 93%) in documented
adherence to aftercare guide-
lines; 42–percentage point abso-
lute increase (from 57% to 98%)
in adherence to guidelines for
documentation of patient history;
all measures decreased toward
baseline rates when computer
system was turned off; 23% rel-
ative decrease (from $520 to
$401) in total per-patient costs

of Study
(n ⴝ 22)
Schriger et al., 1992–1995 DS/EHR Emergency Computerized guidelines em- Effectiveness/effi- Adherence Academic Per authors’ report, 13–percentage
2000 (76), depart- bedded in computerized ciency point absolute increase (from
CCT ment charting system designed to 80% to 92%) in documented
track 5 conditions on pro- adherence to guidelines for med-
cesses of care for evaluation ical history and physical examina-
of febrile children ⬍ age 3 y tion; 33–percentage point abso-

presenting to emergency de- lute increase (from 48% to 81%)
partment in documented adherence to
guidelines for aftercare instruc-
tion; all rates returned to baseline
when computer system was
turned off; no statistically signifi-
cant differences in appropriate-
ness of treatment, appropriate-
ness or utilization rates of
diagnostic tests, or test charges

per patient
Day et al., 1992–1993 DS/EHR Emergency Computerized guidelines em- Effectiveness/effi- Adherence Academic No statistically significant differ-
1995 (78), depart- bedded in computerized ciency ences in appropriateness of diag-
pre–post ment charting system designed to nostic testing or treatment; no
study track 5 conditions on pro- statistically significant decrease in
cesses of care for lower back costs; 12– to 51–percentage
pain point absolute increase in docu-
mentation of 6 medical history
items; 13– to 70–percentage
point absolute increase in docu-
mentation of 6 aftercare counsel-
ing items
Simon et al., NS EHR/data summa- Outpatient Three interventions: 1) feedback Effectiveness/effi- Adherence Nonacademic No statistically significant difference
2000 (79), ry/DS to physicians of computerized ciency (Group Health in computerized DS group com-
RCT data summaries with treat- Cooperative of pared with usual care; 15% rela-
ment recommendations for Puget Sound) tive improvement (from 0.83 vs.
depression care, 2) computer- 0.98) in depression scores in
ized feedback plus telephone computerized DS with telephone
follow-up, and 3) usual care follow-up group, with associated
increase in likelihood of receiving
antidepressant therapy; $80 in-
crease in costs in telephone fol-
low-up group
Utilization of care
Baird et al., NS DS/electronic prescrib- Outpatient Computer-generated, paper- Access Utilization Academic No statistically significant difference
1984 (80), ing based pharmacy reminders of care in refill rates; initial development
RCT from hospital mainframe– of software program, $200; cost
based information system on per day to generate reminders,
prescription refill rates $14
www.annals.org
www.annals.org
of Study
(n ⴝ 22)
Sanders and 2000–2001 DS/CPOE Inpatient Computerized guidelines inte- Efficiency Utilization Academic 5% relative decrease in neuroradi-
Miller, grated into a CPOE system on of care ology CT and MRI diagnostic
2001 (81), utilization of CT and MRI testing; 40% of users receiving
pre–post computerized guideline ordered a
study nonrecommended test

Surveillance
Wells et al., 2001–2002 DS/EHR Outpatient EHR on identifying patients tak- Effectiveness Surveil- Academic 27% of patients eligible were
2003 (83), ing 2 drugs for which a com- lance/ switched to combination therapy;
pre–post bination pill is available and adher- cost savings related to combined
study then generating computerized ence therapy totaled $6159 per year;
reminders to promote combi- 241 patients were screened as
nation therapy eligible for combination therapy;
total number of unique patients
seen during study not given
Medication errors
Potts et al., 2001–2002 CPOE/DS ICU CPOE with DS on medication Efficiency Medication Academic 41% relative decrease (from 2.2
2004 (82), errors in pediatric ICU errors errors/100 orders to 1.3 errors/
pre–post 100 orders) in medication errors
study categorized as potential adverse
drug events; 96% relative de-
crease (from 30 errors/100 or-
ders to 0.2 error/100 orders) in
medication prescribing orders;
decreases occurred in all catego-
ries of medication errors
Implementation
cost
Khoury, 1989–NS EHR Outpatient Long-term costs and benefits of Efficiency Implemen- Kaiser Permanente Cost of development estimated at
1997 (84), implemented EHR tation $10 million; project took 8 y
time-series cost from beginning of development
study to full implementation; total on-
going annual expenses estimated
to be $1.1 million per year; ex-
pected savings per year esti-
mated as $3.7 million, with
greatest savings from reduction
in medical record room staff; sys-
tem predicted to pay for itself in
year 13
* City and state locations of manufacturers are as follows: MedicaLogic Corp., Beaverton, Oregon; Epic Systems Corp., Verona, Wisconsin; Eclipsys Corp., Boca Raton, Florida; Siemens Corp., New York, New York;
Hewlett-Packard Corp., Palo Alto, California. CCT ⫽ controlled clinical trial; CPOE ⫽ computerized provider order entry; CT ⫽ computed tomography; DS ⫽ decision support; EHR ⫽ electronic health record; HIT ⫽ health
information technology; ICU ⫽ intensive care unit; MRI ⫽ magnetic resonance imaging; NS ⫽ not specified; RCT ⫽ randomized, controlled trial.

Chaudhry2006 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chaudhry2006 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chaudhry2006 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annals of Internal Medicine Improving Patient Care

Systematic Review: Impact of Health Information Technology on

H ealth care experts, policymakers, payers, and consum-

entry, to be critical to transforming the health care industry METHODS

742 © 2006 American College of Physicians

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 11/02/2016

fraction of health information technology penetration, and

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 11/02/2016

the 213 hypothesis-testing studies, 84 contained some data

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 11/02/2016

Figure. Search flow for health information technology (HIT) literature.

*Includes 1 descriptive or quantitative article with costs outcomes (Pediatrics article).

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 11/02/2016

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 11/02/2016

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 11/02/2016

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 11/02/2016

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 11/02/2016

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 11/02/2016

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 11/02/2016

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 11/02/2016

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 11/02/2016

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 11/02/2016

Continued on following page

16 May 2006 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 144 • Number 10 W-169

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 11/02/2016

W-170 16 May 2006 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 144 • Number 10

Continued on following page

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 11/02/2016

Continued on following page

16 May 2006 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 144 • Number 10 W-171

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 11/02/2016

W-172 16 May 2006 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 144 • Number 10

Continued on following page

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 11/02/2016

Continued on following page

16 May 2006 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 144 • Number 10 W-173

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 11/02/2016

W-174 16 May 2006 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 144 • Number 10

Continued on following page

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 11/02/2016

16 May 2006 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 144 • Number 10 W-175

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 11/02/2016

W-176 16 May 2006 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 144 • Number 10

Continued on following page

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 11/02/2016

Continued on following page

16 May 2006 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 144 • Number 10 W-177

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 11/02/2016

W-178 16 May 2006 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 144 • Number 10

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 11/02/2016

16 May 2006 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 144 • Number 10 W-179

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 11/02/2016

W-180 16 May 2006 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 144 • Number 10

Continued on following page

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 11/02/2016

Time utilization/medication errors

16 May 2006 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 144 • Number 10 W-181

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 11/02/2016

W-182 16 May 2006 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 144 • Number 10