Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Oncology Reports
Published in: Current Oncology Reports 6/2013

01-12-2013 | Innovations in Information Technology in Cancer Medicine (RB Jones, Section Editor)

Electronic Medical Records and Quality of Cancer Care

Author: Thomas R. Klumpp

Published in: Current Oncology Reports | Issue 6/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

The implementation of electronic medical records (EMR) systems was mandated by the U.S. federal government in large part due to research indicating that difficulty accessing clinical data was one of the most common causes of preventable deaths. Several assumptions were implicit in this mandate, including the assumption that the implementation of EMR would indeed improve clinicians’ access to clinical data, that implementation of EMR would pose little to no risk to patients, and that the clinical benefit of improved access to clinical data would outweigh any risks that might arise. As detailed in this review, both formal research and extensive experiential observation have called all three assumptions into question. Specifically, as detailed below, there is clear evidence that EMR systems are associated with multiple specific risks to patients, whereas few, if any, scientifically rigorous outcomes-based studies have demonstrated that the potential benefits of EMR outweigh the known risks. In addition, there is currently little to no scientifically rigorous evidence that EMR systems constitute a cost-effective methodology for improving patient outcomes.
Literature
1.
•• Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. To Err is human: Building a safer healthcare system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999. p. 1–15. A substantial fraction of preventable inpatient deaths are attributable to processes and systems that predispose to medical errors.
2.
Blumenthal D. Wiring the health system – origins and provisions of a new federal program. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:2323–9.PubMedCrossRef
3.
4.
Cimino JJ. Improving the electronic health record – are clinicians getting what they wished for? JAMA. 2013;309:991–2.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Crosson JC, Bazemore AW, Phillips RL. EHR implementation without meaningful use can lead to worse outcomes. Am Fam Physician. 2011;84:1220.PubMed
6.
DesRoches CM, Audet A-M, Painter M, Donelan K. Meeting meaningful use criteria and managing patient populations. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:791–9.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Fackler JC. Stop the noise and get to the point. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:656–7.
8.
Flodgren G, Eccles MP, Shepperd S, et al. An overview of reviews evaluating the effectiveness of financial incentives in changing healthcare professional behaviours and patient outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;CD009255:1–94.
9.
Han YY, Carcillo JA, Venkataraman ST, et al. Unexpected increase in mortality after implementation of a commercially sold computerized physician order entry system. Pediatrics. 2005;116:1506–12.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Jones SS, Heaton PS, Rudin RS, Schneider EC. Unraveling the IT productivity paradox – lessons for health care. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2243–5.PubMedCrossRef
11.
•• Kern LM, Malhotra S, Barron Y, et al. Accuracy of electronically reported “meaningful use” clinical quality measures. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:77–83. EMR systems generate quality metrics of highly questionable accuracy, which undermines both the validity and efficacy of EMR-based pay-for-performance programs.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Koppel R, Metlay JP, Cohen A, et al. Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medical errors. JAMA. 2005;293:1197–203.PubMedCrossRef
13.
14.
Lin C-T, McKenzie M, Pell J, Caplan L. Health care provider satisfaction with a new electronic progress note format: SOAP vs APSO format [letter]. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:160–2.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Love JS, Simon SR, Jenter CA, et al. Are physicians’ perceptions of healthcare quality and practice satisfaction affected by errors associated with electronic health record use? J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19:610–4.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Mandl KD, Kohane IS. Escaping the EHR trap – the future of health IT. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2240–2.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Mangalmurti SS, Murtagh L, Mello MM. Medical malpractice liability in the age of electronic health records. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2060–7.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Parsons A, McCullough C, Wang J, Shih S. Validity of electronic health record-derived quality measurement for performance monitoring. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19:604–9.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Rosof B. The importance of accurate data in quality-of-care measurement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:379–80.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Thornton JD, Schold JD, Venkateshaiah L, Lander B. Prevalence of copied information by attendings and residents in critical care progress notes. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:382–8.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Villier JA. Dispensing of electronically discontinued medications [letter]. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:571.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Yasnoff WA, Sweeney L, Shortliffe EH. Putting health IT on the path to success. JAMA. 2013;309:989–90.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Needleman J, Buerhaus P, Pankratz VS, et al. Nurse staffing and inpatient hospital mortality. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1037–45.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Baker DW, Qaseem A. Evidence-based performance measures: preventing unintended consequences of quality measurement. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:638–40.
25.
26.
Farmer SA, Black B, Bonow RO. Tension between quality measurement, public quality reporting, and pay for performance. JAMA. 2013;309:349–50.PubMedCrossRef
27.
•• Fonarow GC, Pan W, Saver JL, et al. Comparison of 30-day mortality models for profiling hospital performance in acute ischemic stroke with vs without adjustment for stroke severity. JAMA. 2012;308:257–64.
28.
Ayanian JZ, Kohler BA, Abe T, Epstein AM. The relationship between health insurance coverage and clinical outcomes among women with breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:326–31.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Baker KS, Davies SM, Majhail NS, et al. Race and socioeconomic status influence outcomes of unrelated donor hematopoietic cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009;15:1543–54.
30.
Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, et al. Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:97–107.
31.
Greiver M, Keshavjee K, Martin K, Aliarzadeh B. Who are your patients with diabetes? Can Fam Physician. 2012;58:804.PubMed
32.
Peterson PN, Shetterly SM, Clarke CL, et al. Health literacy and outcomes among patients with heart failure. JAMA. 2011;305:1695–701.
33.
Roetzheim RG, Gonzalez EC, Ferrante JM, Pal N, et al. Effects of health insurance and race on breast carcinoma treatments and outcomes. Cancer. 2000;89:2202–13.
34.
Selby GB, Ali LI, Carter TH, et al. The influence of health insurance on outcomes of related-donor hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for AML and CML [letter]. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2001;7:576–7.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Siegel R, Ward E, Brawley O, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2011: the impact of eliminating socioeconomic and racial disparities on premature cancer deaths. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:212–36.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Werner RM. Will using medicare data to rate doctors benefit patients? Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:532–3.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Glickman SW, Ou F-S, DeLong ER, et al. Pay for performance, quality of care, and outcomes in acute myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2007;297:2373–80.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Houle SKD, McAlister FA, Jackevicius CA, et al. Does performance-based remuneration for individual health care practitioners affect patient care? Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:889–99.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Jha AK, Joynt KE, Orav EJ, Epstein AM. The long-term effect of premier pay for performance on patient outcomes. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1606–15.
40.
41.
Landrigan CP, Parry GJ, Bones CB, et al. Temporal trends in rates of patient harm resulting from medical care. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2124–34.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Lee GM, Kleinman K, Soumerai SB, et al. Effect of nonpayment for preventable infections in U.S. hospitals. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1428–37.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Tu JV, Donovan LR, Lee DS, et al. Effectiveness of public report cards for improving the quality of cardiac care. JAMA. 2009;302:2330–7.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Burstein HJ. A “shot heard ‘round the world” on cancer drug costs? J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2012;10:1315–6.
45.
Goss E, Lopez AM, Brown CL, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement: disparities in cancer care. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2881–5.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Kantarjian H. The price of drugs for chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) is a reflection of unsustainable prices of cancer drugs: from the perspective of a large group of CML experts. Blood. 2013;121:4439–42.CrossRef
47.
Kumar P, Moy B. Cancer health disparities and the cost of cancer care: payment model issues. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2013;11:633–6.
48.
Meropol NJ, Schulman KA. Cost of cancer care: issues and implications. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:180–6.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Metadata
Title
Electronic Medical Records and Quality of Cancer Care
Author
Thomas R. Klumpp
Publication date
01-12-2013
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Oncology Reports / Issue 6/2013
Print ISSN: 1523-3790
Electronic ISSN: 1534-6269
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-013-0347-z

Other articles of this Issue 6/2013

Current Oncology Reports 6/2013 Go to the issue

Cancer Prevention (J Cuzick, Section Editor)

Helicobacter pylori Eradication in the Prevention of Gastric Cancer: Are More Trials Needed?

Gynecologic Cancers (NS Reed, Section Editor)

“Unresectable” Vulval Cancers: Is Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy the Way Forward?

Invited Commentary

Latest Developments in the Biology and Management of Uveal Melanoma

Gynecologic Cancers (NS Reed, Section Editor)

Clear Cell Carcinoma of Ovary and Uterus

Gynecologic Cancers (NS Reed, Section Editor)

A Review of Treatment of Uterine Leiomyosarcomas

Cancer Prevention (J Cuzick, Section Editor)

Role of Aspirin in Cancer Prevention
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits