Interest in Health Information Exchange in Ambulatory Care: A Statewide Survey

Summary

Objective: Assess the interest in and preferences of ambulatory practitioners in HIE.

Background: Health information exchange (HIE) may improve the quality and efficiency of care. Identifying the value proposition for smaller ambulatory practices may help those practices engage in HIE.

Methods: Survey of primary care and specialist practitioners in the State of Colorado.

Results: Clinical data were commonly (always [2%], often [29%] or sometimes [49%]) missing during clinic visits. Of 12 data types proposed as available through HIE, ten were considered “extremely useful” by most practitioners. “Clinical notes/consultation reports,” “diagnosis or problem lists,” and “hospital discharge summaries” were considered the three most useful data types. Interest in EKG reports, diagnosis/problem lists, childhood immunizations, and discharge summaries differed among ambulatory practitioner groups (primary care, obstetrics-gynecology, and internal medicine subspecialties).

Conclusion: Practitioners express strong interest in most of the data types, but opinions differed by specialties on what types were most important. All providers felt that a system that provided all data types would be useful. These results support the potential benefit of HIE in ambulatory practices.

Keywords

Ambulatory care information systems - communication - questionnaires

• References

• 1 Aaron HJ. Budget crisis, entitlement crisis, health care financing problem which is it?. Health Aff 2007; 26: 1622-1633.
• 2 World Health Organization, Lerberghe Wv.. Primary health care: now more than ever.. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2008
• 3 Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Committee on Quality of Health Care in America.. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century.. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press; 2001
• 4 Walker J. et al. The value of health care information exchange and interoperability.. Health Aff. 2005 January 19, 2005:hlthaff.w5.10.
• 5 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 2009 [cited 2010 January 25]; Available from: http://www.recovery.gov/About/Pages/The_Act.aspx
• 6 eHealth Initiative Fifth Annual Survey of Health Information Exchange At the State and Local Levels.. 2009 [cited 2010 January 25]; Available from: http://www.ehealthinitiative.org/sites/default/files/eHI-HIESurveyResultsFinalReport-2008.pdf
• 7 DesRoches CM. et al. Electronic health records in ambulatory care –a national survey of physicians.. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 50-60.
• 8 Nyweide DJ. et al. Relationship of primary care physicians’ patient caseload with measurement of quality and cost performance.. JAMA. 2009; 302: 2444-2450.
• 9 Adler-Milstein J, Landefeld J, Jha AK. Characteristics associated with regional health information organization viability.. J Am Med Inform Assoc.. 2010; 17: 61-65.
• 10 Shapiro JS. et al The New York clinical information exchange clinical advisory S. emergency physicians’ perceptions of health information exchange.. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007; 14: 700-705.
• 11 Miller RH, Miller BS. The Santa Barbara county care data exchange: What happened?. Health Aff 2007; 26: w568-w580.
• 12 Brailer DJ. From Santa Barbara to Washington: A person’s and a nation’s journey toward portable health information.. Health Aff. 2007; 26: w581-w588.
• 13 Grossman JM, Bodenheimer TS, McKenzie K. Hospital-physician portals: The role of competition in driving clinical data exchange.. Health Aff. 2006; 25: 1629-1636.
• 14 Adler-Milstein J. et al. The state of regional health information organizations: current activities and financing.. Health Aff. 2008; 27: w60-w69.
• 15 Grossman JM, Kushner KL, November EA. Creating sustainable local health information exchanges: can barriers to stakeholder participation be overcome?. Res Briefs 2008; 2: 1-12.
• 16 Marchibroda JM. Health information exchange policy and evaluation?. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2007; 40 (Suppl. 01) S11-S6.
• 17 Smith PC. et al. Missing clinical information during primary care visits.. JAMA. 2005; 293: 565-571.
• 18 AHRQ. Health information technology: state and regional demonstration projects.. February 2007 [cited 2009 April 30]; Available from: http://www.ahrq.gov/research/hitdemoproj.htm
• 19 Simon SR. et al. Physicians and electronic health records: A statewide survey.. Arch Intern Med 2007; 167: 507-512.
• 20 ASTM.. ASTM E2369 - 05e1 Standard specification for continuity of care record (CCR).. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2005
• 21 Frohlich J. et al. Retrospective: lessons learned from the Santa Barbara project and their implications for health information exchange.. Health Aff 2007; 26: w589-w591.
• 22 Office of the National Coordinator.. Meaningful Use.. 2009 [cited 2010 January 10]; Available from: http://healthit.hhs.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=1325&parentname=CommunityPage&parentid=1&mode=2