Why Is the Electronic Health Record So Challenging for Research and Clinical Care?

Abstract

Background The electronic health record (EHR) has become increasingly ubiquitous. At the same time, health professionals have been turning to this resource for access to data that is needed for the delivery of health care and for clinical research. There is little doubt that the EHR has made both of these functions easier than earlier days when we relied on paper-based clinical records. Coupled with modern database and data warehouse systems, high-speed networks, and the ability to share clinical data with others are large number of challenges that arguably limit the optimal use of the EHR

Objectives Our goal was to provide an exhaustive reference for those who use the EHR in clinical and research contexts, but also for health information systems professionals as they design, implement, and maintain EHR systems.

Methods This study includes a panel of 24 biomedical informatics researchers, information technology professionals, and clinicians, all of whom have extensive experience in design, implementation, and maintenance of EHR systems, or in using the EHR as clinicians or researchers. All members of the panel are affiliated with Penn Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and have experience with a variety of different EHR platforms and systems and how they have evolved over time.

Results Each of the authors has shared their knowledge and experience in using the EHR in a suite of 20 short essays, each representing a specific challenge and classified according to a functional hierarchy of interlocking facets such as usability and usefulness, data quality, standards, governance, data integration, clinical care, and clinical research.

Conclusion We provide here a set of perspectives on the challenges posed by the EHR to clinical and research users.

Keywords

electronic health records - user-computer interface - standards - medical informatics - systems integration

• References

• 1 Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Office-based physician electronic health record adoption. Accessed December 8, 2020 at: dashboard.healthit.gov/quickstats/pages/physician-ehr-adoption-trends.php
• 2 Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Percent of hospitals, by type, that possess certified health IT. Accessed December 8, 2020 at: dashboard.healthit.gov/quickstats/pages/certified-electronic-health-record-technology-in-hospitals.php
• 3 Artis KA, Bordley J, Mohan V, Gold JA. Data omission by physician trainees on ICU rounds. Crit Care Med 2019; 47 (03) 403-409
• 4 Shenvi EC, Feupe SF, Yang H, El-Kareh R. “Closing the loop”: a mixed-methods study about resident learning from outcome feedback after patient handoffs. Diagnosis (Berl) 2018; 5 (04) 235-242
• 5 Khairat S, Coleman C, Newlin T. et al. A mixed-methods evaluation framework for electronic health records usability studies. J Biomed Inform 2019; 94: 103175
• 6 Cohen DJ, Dorr DA, Knierim K. et al. Primary care practices' abilities and challenges in using electronic health record data for quality improvement. Health Aff (Millwood) 2018; 37 (04) 635-643
• 7 Bristol AA, Nibbelink CW, Gephart SM, Carrington JM. Nurses' use of positive deviance when encountering electronic health records-related unintended consequences. Nurs Adm Q 2018; 42 (01) E1-E11
• 8 Gephart S, Carrington JM, Finley B. A systematic review of nurses' experiences with unintended consequences when using the electronic health record. Nurs Adm Q 2015; 39 (04) 345-356
• 9 Friedman A, Crosson JC, Howard J. et al. A typology of electronic health record workarounds in small-to-medium size primary care practices. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014; 21 (e1): e78-e83
• 10 Schiff GD, Zucker L. Medical scribes: salvation for primary care or workaround for poor EMR usability?. J Gen Intern Med 2016; 31 (09) 979-981
• 11 Flanagan ME, Saleem JJ, Millitello LG, Russ AL, Doebbeling BN. Paper- and computer-based workarounds to electronic health record use at three benchmark institutions. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013; 20 (e1): e59-e66
• 12 Hysong SJ, Sawhney MK, Wilson L. et al. Provider management strategies of abnormal test result alerts: a cognitive task analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010; 17 (01) 71-77
• 13 Menon S, Murphy DR, Singh H, Meyer AND, Sittig DF. Workarounds and test results follow-up in electronic health record-based primary care. Appl Clin Inform 2016; 7 (02) 543-559
• 14 Zahabi M, Kaber DB, Swangnetr M. Usability and safety in electronic medical records interface design: a review of recent literature and guideline formulation. Hum Factors 2015; 57 (05) 805-834
• 15 Roman LC, Ancker JS, Johnson SB, Senathirajah Y. Navigation in the electronic health record: a review of the safety and usability literature. J Biomed Inform 2017; 67: 69-79
• 16 Reid PP, Compton WD, Grossman JH, Fanjiang Geds. National Academy of Engineering (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Engineering and the Health Care System. Building a Better Delivery System: A New Engineering/Health Care Partnership. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US); 2005
• 17 Health information technology: standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria for electronic health record technology. 2014 edition; revisions to the permanent certification program for health information technology. Accessed June 17, 2021 at: https://federalregister.gov/a/2012-20982
• 18 Ratwani RM, Fairbanks RJ, Hettinger AZ, Benda NC. Electronic health record usability: analysis of the user-centered design processes of eleven electronic health record vendors. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015; 22 (06) 1179-1182
• 19 Gianfrancesco MA, Tamang S, Yazdany J, Schmajuk G. Potential biases in machine learning algorithms using electronic health record data. JAMA Intern Med 2018; 178 (11) 1544-1547
• 20 Kearns M, Neel S, Roth A, Wu ZS. An Empirical Study of Rich Subgroup Fairness for Machine Learning. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. FAT* '19. Association for Computing Machinery; 2019 100-109
• 21 Gijsberts CM, Groenewegen KA, Hoefer IE. et al. Race/ethnic differences in the associations of the framingham risk factors with carotid IMT and cardiovascular events. PLoS One 2015; 10 (07) e0132321
• 22 Eneanya ND, Yang W, Reese PP. Reconsidering the consequences of using race to estimate kidney function. JAMA 2019; 322 (02) 113-114
• 23 Rajkomar A, Hardt M, Howell MD, Corrado G, Chin MH. Ensuring fairness in machine learning to advance health equity. Ann Intern Med 2018; 169 (12) 866-872
• 24 Ehrmeyer SS, Laessig RH. Has compliance with CLIA requirements really improved quality in US clinical laboratories?. Clin Chim Acta 2004; 346 (01) 37-43
• 25 Greg Miller W, Myers GL, Lou Gantzer M. et al. Roadmap for harmonization of clinical laboratory measurement procedures. Clin Chem 2011; 57 (08) 1108-1117
• 26 Christenson RH, Jacobs E, Uettwiller-Geiger D. et al. Comparison of 13 commercially available cardiac troponin assays in a multicenter North American study. J Appl Lab Med 2017; 1 (05) 544-561
• 27 Huff SM, Rocha RA, McDonald CJ. et al. Development of the logical observation identifier names and codes (LOINC) vocabulary. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1998; 5 (03) 276-292
• 28 Cornet R, Chute CG. Health concept and knowledge management: twenty-five years of evolution. Yearb Med Inform 2016; 1 (9312666): (Suppl. 01) S32-S41
• 29 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10). Accessed June 17, 2021 at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd10.htm
• 30 Bodenreider O, Cornet R, Vreeman DJ. Recent Developments in Clinical Terminologies - SNOMED CT, LOINC, and RxNorm. Yearb Med Inform 2018; 27 (01) 129-139
• 31 Hripcsak G, Duke JD, Shah NH. et al. Observational health data sciences and informatics (OHDSI): opportunities for observational researchers. Stud Health Technol Inform 2015; 216: 574-578
• 32 World Health Organization. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD). ICD-11. Accessed June 17, 2021 at: https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/
• 33 Smith SW, Koppel R. Healthcare information technology's relativity problems: a typology of how patients' physical reality, clinicians' mental models, and healthcare information technology differ. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014; 21 (01) 117-131
• 34 Woodfield R, Grant I, Sudlow CL. UK Biobank Stroke Outcomes Group, UK Biobank Follow-Up and Outcomes Working Group. Accuracy of electronic health record data for identifying stroke cases in large-scale epidemiological studies: a systematic review from the UK Biobank Stroke Outcomes Group. PLoS One 2015; 10 (10) e0140533
• 35 Liao KP, Cai T, Savova GK. et al. Development of phenotype algorithms using electronic medical records and incorporating natural language processing. BMJ 2015; 350: h1885
• 36 Schulz S, Jansen L. Formal ontologies in biomedical knowledge representation. Yearb Med Inform 2013; 8 (9312666): 132-146
• 37 Smith B, Ashburner M, Rosse C. et al; OBI Consortium. The OBO Foundry: coordinated evolution of ontologies to support biomedical data integration. Nat Biotechnol 2007; 25 (11) 1251-1255
• 38 Zhang XA, Yates A, Vasilevsky N. et al. Semantic integration of clinical laboratory tests from electronic health records for deep phenotyping and biomarker discovery. NPJ Digit Med 2019; 2 (32) 32
• 39 Bona JP, Prior FW, Zozus MN, Brochhausen M. Enhancing clinical data and clinical research data with biomedical ontologies - insights from the knowledge representation perspective. Yearb Med Inform 2019; 28 (01) 140-151
• 40 Brochhausen M, Bona J, Blobel B. The role of axiomatically-rich ontologies in transforming medical data to knowledge. Stud Health Technol Inform 2018; 249: 38-49
• 41 Bowles KH, Potashnik S, Ratcliffe SJ. et al. Conducting research using the electronic health record across multi-hospital systems: semantic harmonization implications for administrators. J Nurs Adm 2013; 43 (06) 355-360
• 42 Nordo AH, Levaux HP, Becnel LB. et al. Use of EHRs data for clinical research: Historical progress and current applications. Learn Health Syst 2019; 3 (01) e10076
• 43 Garza M, Del Fiol G, Tenenbaum J, Walden A, Zozus MN. Evaluating common data models for use with a longitudinal community registry. J Biomed Inform 2016; 64: 333-341
• 44 Collins FS, Hudson KL, Briggs JP, Lauer MS. PCORnet: turning a dream into reality. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014; 21 (04) 576-577
• 45 Murphy SN, Weber G, Mendis M. et al. Serving the enterprise and beyond with informatics for integrating biology and the bedside (i2b2). J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010; 17 (02) 124-130
• 46 Murtagh MJ, Blell MT, Butters OW. et al. Better governance, better access: practising responsible data sharing in the METADAC governance infrastructure. Hum Genomics 2018; 12 (01) 24
• 47 Meinert E, Alturkistani A, Brindley D, Knight P, Wells G, de Pennington N. Weighing benefits and risks in aspects of security, privacy and adoption of technology in a value-based healthcare system. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2018; 18 (01) 100
• 48 Dankar FK, Ptitsyn A, Dankar SK. The development of large-scale de-identified biomedical databases in the age of genomics-principles and challenges. Hum Genomics 2018; 12 (01) 19
• 49 Stahl BC, Rainey S, Harris E, Fothergill BT. The role of ethics in data governance of large neuro-ICT projects. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018; 25 (08) 1099-1107
• 50 Powles J, Hodson H. Google deepmind and healthcare in an age of algorithms. Health Technol (Berl) 2017; 7 (04) 351-367
• 51 Roland M. Linking physicians' pay to the quality of care--a major experiment in the United Kingdom. N Engl J Med 2004; 351 (14) 1448-1454
• 52 Roland M, Guthrie B. Quality and outcomes framework: what have we learnt?. BMJ 2016; 354: i4060
• 53 United States District Court Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division. MATT DINERSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Google, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDICAL CENTER, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, and THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation. Accessed June 17, 2021 at: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.366172/gov.uscourts.ilnd.366172.85.0.pdf
• 54 Ohno-Machado L. To share or not to share: that is not the question. Sci Transl Med 2012; 4 (165) 165cm15
• 55 Wu Y, Jiang X, Kim J, Ohno-Machado L. Grid Binary LOgistic REgression (GLORE): building shared models without sharing data. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012; 19 (05) 758-764
• 56 Ohno-Machado L, Agha Z, Bell DS. et al; pSCANNER team. pSCANNER: patient-centered scalable national network for effectiveness research. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014; 21 (04) 621-626
• 57 Duan R, Boland MR, Liu Z. et al. Learning from electronic health records across multiple sites: a communication-efficient and privacy-preserving distributed algorithm. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2020; 27 (03) 376-385
• 58 Duan R, Luo C, Schuemie MJ. et al. Learning from local to global: an efficient distributed algorithm for modeling time-to-event data. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2020; 27 (07) 1028-1036
• 59 Deng Y, Jiang X, Long Q. Privacy-preserving methods for vertically partitioned incomplete data. Annu Symp Am Med Inform Assoc 2021; 2020: 348-357
• 60 Chang C, Deng Y, Jiang X, Long Q. Multiple imputation for analysis of incomplete data in distributed health data networks. Nat Commun 2020; 11 (01) 5467
• 61 Health Information Privacy. Guidance regarding methods for de-identification of protected health information in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy rule. Accessed August 3, 2020. Accessed August 3, 2020 at: https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/special-topics/de-identification/index.html
• 62 Kushida CA, Nichols DA, Jadrnicek R, Miller R, Walsh JK, Griffin K. Strategies for de-identification and anonymization of electronic health record data for use in multicenter research studies. Med Care 2012; 50: S82-S101
• 63 Rocher L, Hendrickx JM, de Montjoye Y-A. Estimating the success of re-identifications in incomplete datasets using generative models. Nat Commun 2019; 10 (01) 3069
• 64 Meystre SM, Friedlin FJ, South BR, Shen S, Samore MH. Automatic de-identification of textual documents in the electronic health record: a review of recent research. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010; 10 (100968545): 70
• 65 Hayden EC. Privacy loophole found in genetic databases. Accessed June 17, 2021 at: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2013.12237
• 66 Pecoraro F, Luzi D, Ricci FL. Designing ETL tools to feed a data warehouse based on electronic healthcare record infrastructure. Stud Health Technol Inform 2015; 210: 929-933
• 67 Pecoraro F, Luzi D, Ricci FL. Secondary uses of EHR systems: A feasibility study. Published in: E-Health and Bioengineering Conference (EHB). 21–23 November. 2013; Iasi, Romania; 2013: 1-6
• 68 Botsis T, Hartvigsen G, Chen F, Weng C. Secondary use of EHR: data quality issues and informatics opportunities. Summit On Translat Bioinforma 2010; 2010: 1-5
• 69 Weiskopf NG, Hripcsak G, Swaminathan S, Weng C. Defining and measuring completeness of electronic health records for secondary use. J Biomed Inform 2013; 46 (05) 830-836
• 70 Kroth PJ, Morioka-Douglas N, Veres S. et al. Association of electronic health record design and use factors with clinician stress and burnout. JAMA Netw Open 2019; 2 (08) e199609-e199609
• 71 National Academy of Medicine, Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice, Institute of Medicine. Capturing Social and Behavioral Domains and Measures in Electronic Health Records: Phase 2. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US); 2015
• 72 Bycroft C, Freeman C, Petkova D. et al. The UK Biobank resource with deep phenotyping and genomic data. Nature 2018; 562 (7726): 203-209
• 73 Hamilton CM, Strader LC, Pratt JG. et al. The PhenX Toolkit: get the most from your measures. Am J Epidemiol 2011; 174 (03) 253-260
• 74 McCarty CA, Berg R, Rottscheit CM. et al. Validation of PhenX measures in the personalized medicine research project for use in gene/environment studies. BMC Med Genomics 2014; 7: 3
• 75 Luzi D, Rocco I, Tamburis O, Corso B, Minicuci N, Pecoraro F. Variability in the assessment of children's primary healthcare in 30 European countries. Int J Qual Health Care 2021; 33 (01) mzab007
• 76 Deans KJ, Sabihi S, Forrest CB. Learning health systems. Semin Pediatr Surg 2018; 27 (06) 375-378
• 77 Sarafidis M, Tarousi M, Anastasiou A. et al. Data quality challenges in a learning health system. Stud Health Technol Inform 2020; 270: 143-147
• 78 Chen JH, Alagappan M, Goldstein MK, Asch SM, Altman RB. Decaying relevance of clinical data towards future decisions in data-driven inpatient clinical order sets. Int J Med Inform 2017; 102: 71-79
• 79 Sculley D, Holt G, Golovin D. et al. Hidden technical debt in machine learning systems. Accessed June 17, 2021 at: https://papers.nips.cc/paper/2015/file/86df7dcfd896fcaf2674f757a2463eba-Paper.pdf
• 80 Mathes T, Buehn S, Prengel P, Pieper D. Registry-based randomized controlled trials merged the strength of randomized controlled trails and observational studies and give rise to more pragmatic trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2018; 93: 120-127
• 81 Workman TA. Engaging Patients in Information Sharing and Data Collection: The Role of Patient-Powered Registries and Research Networks. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013
• 82 Wozniak L, Soprovich A, Rees S, Johnson ST, Majumdar SR, Johnson JA. Challenges in identifying patients with Type 2 Diabetes for quality-improvement interventions in primary care settings and the importance of valid disease registires. Can J Diabetes 2015; 39 (Suppl. 03) S77-S82
• 83 Hripcsak G, Albers DJ. Next-generation phenotyping of electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013; 20 (01) 117-121
• 84 Xie S, Himes BE. Approaches to link geospatially varying social, economic, and environmental factors with electronic health record data to better understand asthma exacerbations. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2018; 2018: 1561-1570
• 85 Xie S, Greenblatt R, Levy MZ, Himes BE. Enhancing electronic health record data with geospatial information. AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc 2017; 2017: 123-132
• 86 Goldstein BA, Bhavsar NA, Phelan M, Pencina MJ. Controlling for informed presence bias due to the number of health encounters in an electronic health record. Am J Epidemiol 2016; 184 (11) 847-855
• 87 Rusanov A, Weiskopf NG, Wang S, Weng C. Hidden in plain sight: bias towards sick patients when sampling patients with sufficient electronic health record data for research. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2014; 14 (01) 51
• 88 Wei W-Q, Teixeira PL, Mo H, Cronin RM, Warner JL, Denny JC. Combining billing codes, clinical notes, and medications from electronic health records provides superior phenotyping performance. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016; 23 (e1): e20-e27
• 89 Hubbard RA, Tong J, Duan R, Chen Y. Reducing bias due to outcome misclassification for epidemiologic studies using EHR-derived probabilistic phenotypes. Epidemiology 2020; 31 (04) 542-550
• 90 Shortreed SM, Cook AJ, Coley RY, Bobb JF, Nelson JC. Challenges and opportunities for using big health care data to advance medical science and public health. Am J Epidemiol 2019; 188 (05) 851-861
• 91 Agniel D, Kohane IS, Weber GM. Biases in electronic health record data due to processes within the healthcare system: retrospective observational study. BMJ 2018; 361: k1479
• 92 Haneuse S, Daniels M. A general framework for considering selection bias in EHR-based studies: what data are observed and why?. EGEMS (Wash DC) 2016; 4 (01) 1203
• 93 Wu J, Roy J, Stewart WF. Prediction modeling using EHR data: challenges, strategies, and a comparison of machine learning approaches. Med Care 2010; 48 (06) S106-S113
• 94 Pathak J, Kho AN, Denny JC. Electronic health records-driven phenotyping: challenges, recent advances, and perspectives. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013; 20 (e2): e206-e211
• 95 Robnik-Šikonja M, Kononenko I. Theoretical and empirical analysis of ReliefF and RReliefF. Mach Learn 2003; 53: 23-69
• 96 Madhavan S, Bastarache L, Brown JS. et al. Use of electronic health records to support a public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States: a perspective from 15 academic medical centers. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021; 28 (02) 393-401
• 97 Haendel MA, Chute CG, Bennett TD. et al. The national COVID cohort collaborative (N3C): rationale, design, infrastructure, and deployment. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021; 28 (03) 427-443
• 98 Brat GA, Weber GM, Gehlenborg N. et al. International electronic health record-derived COVID-19 clinical course profiles: the 4CE consortium. NPJ Digit Med 2020; 3: 109
• 99 Burn E, You SC, Sena AG. et al. Deep phenotyping of 34,128 adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in an international network study. Nat Commun 2020; 11 (01) 5009
• 100 Friedman C, Rubin J, Brown J. et al. Toward a science of learning systems: a research agenda for the high-functioning learning health system. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015; 22 (01) 43-50
• 101 Hutter F, Kotthoff L, Vanschoren J. Automated Machine Learning: Methods, Systems, Challenges. 1st ed.. Switzerland: Springer Nature; 2019