Of 17 quality indicators assessed by the study, electronic health records made no difference in 14 measures. In two areas, better quality was associated with electronic records, while worse quality was found in one area. Senior author Randall Stafford, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the Stanford Prevention Research Center, said that given the overall mediocre performance of physicians in the 17 quality indicator areas, he and his colleagues had expected better quality from doctors using electronic records.
Stafford said the study doesn't discount the value of electronic health records, but points out that the entire health-care system needs to embrace the concept of improving the quality of care delivered in clinic and office visits.
"We need to be cautious about the assumption that electronic health records are going to solve problems around health-care quality by themselves," Stafford said. "It's not sufficient to have an electronic health record system that provides readily available patient data and decision-making guidance. Physicians have to be receptive to that input and willing to act on that input."
The 14 quality indicators for which electronic records made no significant difference included such factors as prescribing recommended antibiotics; diet and exercise counselling for high-risk adults; screening tests; and avoiding potentially inappropriate prescriptions for elderly patients.
In two quality areas - not prescribing benzodiazepine tranquilizers for patients with depression, and avoiding routine urinalysis during general medical exams - doctors using electronic record systems fared better than those who didn't. But when it came to prescribing statins for patients with high cholesterol, physicians using electronic systems did worse.
The researchers found that electronic health records were used in 18 percent of the estimated 1.8 billion physician visits that occurred in 2003 and 2004.
MEDICA.de; Source: Stanford University Medical Center