Key result
Fully implemented EHR use was associated with fewer heparin overdosing errors (45.7% vs 72.8%; P<0.01) and a higher likelihood of guideline-recommended care (OR 1.40; 95% CI 1.07-1.84) after AMI.
Why the study?
Does treatment at hospitals with fully implemented EHRs improve quality of care and clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Observational (n=124,826)
Yes
Does treatment at hospitals with fully implemented EHRs improve quality of care and clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Effect estimate: OR 1.40 (95% CI 1.07-1.84)
Full implementation of electronic health records in US hospitals is associated with modestly improved adherence to guideline-recommended therapies and fewer dosing errors in AMI patients, with slight mortality and bleeding benefits observed specifically in NSTEMI.
Should not yet change AMI practice; extends observational data on EHR-linked care quality but leaves causal outcome effects open.
BACKGROUND: In 2009, national legislation promoted wide-spread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) across US hospitals; however, the association of EHR use with quality of care and outcomes after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data on EHR use were collected from the American Hospital Association Annual Surveys (2007-2010) and data on AMI care and outcomes from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Acute Coronary Treatment and Interventions Outcomes Network Registry-Get With The Guidelines. Comparisons were made between patients treated at hospitals with fully implemented EHR (n=43 527), partially implemented EHR (n=72 029), and no EHR (n=9270). Overall EHR use increased from 82.1% (183/223) hospitals in 2007 to 99.3% (275/277) hospitals in 2010. Patients treated at hospitals with fully implemented EHRs had fewer heparin overdosing errors (45.7% versus 72.8%; P<0.01) and a higher likelihood of guideline-recommended care (adjusted odds ratio, 1.40 [confidence interval, 1.07-1.84]) compared with patients treated at hospitals with no EHR. In non-ST-segment-elevation AMI, fully implemented EHR use was associated with lower risk of major bleeding (adjusted odds ratio, 0.78 [confidence interval, 0.67-0.91]) and mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82 [confidence interval, 0.69-0.97]) compared with no EHR. In ST-segment-elevation MI, outcomes did not significantly differ by EHR status. CONCLUSIONS: EHR use has risen to high levels among hospitals in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. EHR use was associated with less frequent heparin overdosing and modestly greater adherence to acute MI guideline-recommended therapies. In non-ST-segment-elevation MI, slightly lower adjusted risk of major bleeding and mortality were seen in hospitals implemented with full EHRs; however, in ST-segment-elevation MI, differences in outcomes were not seen.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Enriquez et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Acute myocardial infarction (n=124,826). Fully implemented electronic health records (EHR) vs. No EHR was evaluated on Guideline-recommended care (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.07-1.84). Fully implemented EHR use was associated with fewer heparin overdosing errors (45.7% vs 72.8%; P<0.01) and a higher likelihood of guideline-recommended care (OR 1.40; 95% CI 1.07-1.84) after AMI.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: