<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:prism="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/prism/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com">
<title>Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association Latest Issue</title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com</link>
<description>Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association rss feed</description>
<prism:eIssn>1527-974X</prism:eIssn>
<prism:coverDisplayDate>June 2013</prism:coverDisplayDate>
<prism:publicationName>Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association</prism:publicationName>
<prism:issn>1067-5027</prism:issn>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e2?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e9?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e14?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e17?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e21?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e26?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e33?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e39?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e44?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e52?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e59?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e67?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e76?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e85?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e91?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e97?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e102?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e111?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e118?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e125?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e131?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e139?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e147?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e155?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e162?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e169?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e175?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e178?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e183?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e187?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e191?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e193?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e195?rss=1" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
<image rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/site/homepage/JAMIA_95x60.gif" />
</channel>
<image rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/site/homepage/JAMIA_95x60.gif">
<title>Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association</title>
<url>http://jamia.bmj.com/site/homepage/JAMIA_95x60.gif</url>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com</link>
</image>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Electronic health records: monitoring the return on large investments]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>This special issue of <I>JAMIA</I> focuses on Electronic Health Records (EHR) systems. Health systems in many countries have promoted the implementation of EHR systems in the past few decades, and demonstrations of value for public health and research, as well as implications for clinical workflows and care improvement have been previously published. In the USA, however, a substantial government initiative to promote the widespread implementation of EHR systems did not happen until 2009. The HITECH act provided the necessary financial incentives for EHR implementation in different settings, which increased public interest in information about key factors for success or failure, particularly generalizable lessons learned from practical implementations.</p> <p>The articles in this issue discuss and provide some answers to frequently asked questions related to: (1) EHR usability issues in clinical care and quality improvement; (2) public health implications of EHR and health information exchange systems across institutions; and (3) use...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ohno-Machado, L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001966</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2013-001966</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Electronic health records: monitoring the return on large investments]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Highlights</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e1</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e1</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e2?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Enhancing patient safety and quality of care by improving the usability of electronic health record systems: recommendations from AMIA]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e2?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>In response to mounting evidence that use of electronic medical record systems may cause unintended consequences, and even patient harm, the AMIA Board of Directors convened a Task Force on Usability to examine evidence from the literature and make recommendations. This task force was composed of representatives from both academic settings and vendors of electronic health record (EHR) systems. After a careful review of the literature and of vendor experiences with EHR design and implementation, the task force developed 10 recommendations in four areas: (1) human factors health information technology (IT) research, (2) health IT policy, (3) industry recommendations, and (4) recommendations for the clinician end-user of EHR software. These AMIA recommendations are intended to stimulate informed debate, provide a plan to increase understanding of the impact of usability on the effective use of health IT, and lead to safer and higher quality care with the adoption of useful and usable EHR systems.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Middleton, B., Bloomrosen, M., Dente, M. A., Hashmat, B., Koppel, R., Overhage, J. M., Payne, T. H., Rosenbloom, S. T., Weaver, C., Zhang, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001458</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-001458</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Enhancing patient safety and quality of care by improving the usability of electronic health record systems: recommendations from AMIA]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Perspectives</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e2</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e8</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e9?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Ten key considerations for the successful implementation and adoption of large-scale health information technology]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e9?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>The implementation of health information technology interventions is at the forefront of most policy agendas internationally. However, such undertakings are often far from straightforward as they require complex strategic planning accompanying the systemic organizational changes associated with such programs. Building on our experiences of designing and evaluating the implementation of large-scale health information technology interventions in the USA and the UK, we highlight key lessons learned in the hope of informing the on-going international efforts of policymakers, health directorates, healthcare management, and senior clinicians.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cresswell, K. M., Bates, D. W., Sheikh, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001684</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2013-001684</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Editor''s choice]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Ten key considerations for the successful implementation and adoption of large-scale health information technology]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Perspectives</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e9</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e13</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e14?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Patient-centered care requires a patient-oriented workflow model]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e14?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Effective design of health information technology (HIT) for patient-centered care requires consideration of workflow from the patient's perspective, termed &lsquo;patient-oriented workflow.&rsquo; This approach organizes the building blocks of work around the patients who are moving through the care system. Patient-oriented workflow complements the more familiar clinician-oriented workflow approaches, and offers several advantages, including the ability to capture simultaneous, cooperative work, which is essential in care delivery. Patient-oriented workflow models can also provide an understanding of healthcare work taking place in various formal and informal health settings in an integrated manner. We present two cases demonstrating the potential value of patient-oriented workflow models. Significant theoretical, methodological, and practical challenges must be met to ensure adoption of patient-oriented workflow models. Patient-oriented workflow models define meaningful system boundaries and can lead to HIT implementations that are more consistent with cooperative work and its emergent features.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ozkaynak, M., Flatley Brennan, P., Hanauer, D. A., Johnson, S., Aarts, J., Zheng, K., Haque, S. N.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001633</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2013-001633</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Patient-centered care requires a patient-oriented workflow model]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Perspectives</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e14</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e16</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e17?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Using electronic health records to save money]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e17?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>Health information technology, especially electronic health records (EHRs), can be used to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of healthcare providers. This study assessed the cost-savings of incorporating a list of preferred specialty care providers into the EHRs used by all primary care physicians (PCPs), accompanied by a comprehensive implementation plan.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>On January 1, 2005, all specialty clinic providers at the Israeli Defense Forces were divided into one of four financial classes based on their charges, class 1, the least expensive, being the most preferred, followed by classes 2&ndash;4. This list was incorporated into the EHRs used by all PCPs in primary care clinics. PCPs received comprehensive training. Target referral goals were determined for each class and measured for 4&nbsp;years, together with the total cost of all specialist visits in the first year compared to the following years. Quality assessment (QA) scores were used as a measure of the program's effect on the quality of patient care.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>During 2005&ndash;2008, a marginally significant decline in referrals to class 1 was observed (r=&ndash;0.254, p=0.078), however a significant increase in referral rates to class 2 was observed (r=0.957, p=0.042), concurrent with a decrease in referral rates to classes 3 and 4 (r=&ndash;0.312, p=0.024). An inverse correlation was observed between year and total costs for all visits to specialists (2008 prices; r=&ndash;0.96, p=0.04), and between the mean cost of one specialist visit over the 4&nbsp;years, indicating a significant reduction in real costs (2008 prices; r=&ndash;0.995, p=0.005). QA was not affected by these changes (r=0.94, p=0.016).</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>From a policy perspective, our data suggest that EHR can facilitate effective utilization of healthcare providers and decrease costs.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bar-Dayan, Y., Saed, H., Boaz, M., Misch, Y., Shahar, T., Husiascky, I., Blumenfeld, O.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001504</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-001504</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Using electronic health records to save money]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Perspectives</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e17</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e20</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e21?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The wave has finally broken: now what?]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e21?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>In 2005, the authors published a paper, &lsquo;Will the wave finally break? A brief view of the adoption of electronic medical records in the United States&rsquo;, which predicted that rapid adoption of electronic health records (EHR) would occur in the next 5&nbsp;years given appropriate incentives. The wave has finally broken with the stimulus of the health information technology for economic and clinical health legislation in 2009, and there have been both positive and negative developments in the ensuing years. The positive developments, among others described, are increased adoption of EHR, the emergence of a national network infrastructure and the recognition of clinical informatics as a medical specialty. Problems that still exist include, among others described, continued user interface problems, distrust of EHR-generated notes and an increased potential for fraud and abuse. It is anticipated that in the next 5&nbsp;years there will be near universal EHR adoption, greater emphasis on standards and interoperability, greater involvement of Congress in health information technology (IT), breakthroughs in user interfaces, compelling online medical and IT education, both increased use of data analytics for personalized healthcare and a realization of the difficulties of this approach, a blurring of the distinction between EHR and telemedicine, a resurgence of computer-assisted diagnosis and the emergence of a &lsquo;continuously learning&rsquo; healthcare system.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Simborg, D. W., Detmer, D. E., Berner, E. S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001508</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-001508</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The wave has finally broken: now what?]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Perspectives</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e21</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e25</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e26?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[When does adoption of health information technology by physician practices lead to use by physicians within the practice?]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e26?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>We sought to determine the extent to which adoption of health information technology (HIT) by physician practices may differ from the extent of use by individual physicians, and to examine factors associated with adoption and use.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Materials and methods</st>
<p>Using cross-sectional survey data from the National Study of Small and Medium-Sized Physician Practices (July 2007&ndash;March 2009), we examined the extent to which organizational capabilities and external incentives were associated with the adoption of five key HIT functionalities by physician practices and with use of those functionalities by individual physicians.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>The rate of physician practices adopting any of the five HIT functionalities was 34.1%. When practices adopted HIT functionalities, on average, about one in seven physicians did not use those functionalities. One physician in five did not use prompts and reminders following adoption by their practice. After controlling for other factors, both adoption of HIT by practices and use of HIT by individual physicians were higher in primary care practices and larger practices. Practices reporting an emphasis on patient-centered management were not more likely than others to adopt, but their physicians were more likely to use HIT.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Discussion</st>
<p>Larger practices were most likely to have adopted HIT, but other factors, including specialty mix and self-reported patient-centered management, had a stronger influence on the use of HIT once adopted.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Adoption of HIT by practices does not mean that physicians will use the HIT.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[McClellan, S. R., Casalino, L. P., Shortell, S. M., Rittenhouse, D. R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001271</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-001271</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[When does adoption of health information technology by physician practices lead to use by physicians within the practice?]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research and applications</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e26</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e32</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e33?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Use of electronic medical records differs by specialty and office settings]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e33?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>To assess differences in the use of electronic medical records (EMRs) among medical specialties and practice settings.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>A cross-sectional retrospective study using nationally representative data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey for the period 2003&ndash;2010 was performed. Bivariate and multivariate analyzes compared EMR use among physicians of 14 specialties and assessed variation by practice setting. Differences in EMR use by geographic region, patient characteristics, and physician office settings were also assessed.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Bivariate and multivariate analysis demonstrated increased EMR use from 2003 to 2010, with 16% reporting at least partial use in 2003, rising to 52% in 2010 (p&lt;0.001). Cardiologists, orthopedic surgeons, urologists, and family/general practitioners had higher frequencies of EMR use whereas psychiatrists, ophthalmologists, and dermatologists had the lowest EMR use. Employed physicians had higher EMR uptake than physicians who owned their practice (48% vs 31%, p&lt;0.001). EMR uptake was lower among solo practitioners (23%) than non-solo practitioners (42%, p&lt;0.001). Practices owned by Health Maintenance Organizations had higher frequencies of EMR use (83%) than practices owned by physicians, community health centers, or academic centers (all &lt;45%, p&lt;0.001). Patient demographics did not affect EMR use (p&gt;0.05).</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Uptake of EMR is increasing, although it is significantly slower in dermatology, ophthalmology, and psychiatry. Solo practitioners and owners of a practice have low frequencies of EMR use compared with non-solo practitioners and those who do not own their practice. Despite incentives for EMR adoption, physicians should carefully weigh which, if any, EMR to adopt in their practices.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kokkonen, E. W. J., Davis, S. A., Lin, H.-C., Dabade, T. S., Feldman, S. R., Fleischer, A. B.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001609</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-001609</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Use of electronic medical records differs by specialty and office settings]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research and applications</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e33</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e38</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e39?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Factors that physicians find encouraging and discouraging about electronic prescribing: a quantitative study]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e39?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>To determine factors that physicians find encouraging and discouraging about e-prescribing and to compare these factors based on physicians&rsquo; adoption status, a cross-sectional study was conducted using an internet-based survey administered to a national convenience sample of primary care physicians. A scale was developed to measure factors related to the adoption of e-prescribing. Analysis procedures included exploratory factor analysis, multivariate analysis of variance, and Tukey's post-hoc tests. 443 surveys were received and seven e-prescribing factors were identified. Pre-implementation and cost factors were found to be most discouraging, while software features were found to be most encouraging. The fact that current e-prescribers found e-prescribing factors to be more encouraging than future or non-e-prescribers suggests that &lsquo;fear of the unknown&rsquo; may play a role in prescribers&rsquo; perceptions of e-prescribing and associated software. These findings will enable consultants, vendors, and policymakers to facilitate the adoption of e-prescribing by directly targeting the factors that are most salient to physicians.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jariwala, K. S., Holmes, E. R., Banahan, B. F., McCaffrey, D. J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001214</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-001214</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Factors that physicians find encouraging and discouraging about electronic prescribing: a quantitative study]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research and applications</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e39</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e43</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e44?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Early experience with electronic prescribing of controlled substances in a community setting]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e44?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Background</st>
<p>In 2010, the US Drug Enforcement Administration issued regulations allowing electronic prescribing of controlled substances (EPCS), a practice previously prohibited.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>To carry out a survey of the experience of prescribers in the nation's first study of EPCS implementation.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Materials and methods</st>
<p>Prescribers were surveyed in a community setting before and after implementation of EPCS, to assess adoption, attitudes, and challenges.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Of the 102 prescribers enabled to use EPCS and who responded to surveys before and after implementation, 70 had sent at least one controlled substance prescription electronically. Most users reported that EPCS was significantly less burdensome than expected. Over half reported that EPCS was easy to use and improved work flow, accuracy of prescriptions (69.5%), monitoring of medications (59.3%), and coordination with pharmacists, though high prior expectations for improved efficiency were not met. EPCS users reported a significant decrease in the perceived frequency of medication errors and drug diversion, compared with controls. Barriers to use of EPCS included limited pharmacy participation and instances of unreliability of the technology.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Discussion</st>
<p>Interest in adoption of EPCS is considerable among providers, pharmacies, and vendors. The results suggest that while most EPCS security features may be more acceptable to providers than expected, barriers such as the limited participation by pharmacies may also partly explain slow adoption rates for EPCS nationally.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>EPCS was a better experience for many providers than they had expected, but related improvements in practice efficiency and quality of care will depend upon implementation strategies.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Thomas, C. P., Kim, M., Kelleher, S. J., Nikitin, R. V., Kreiner, P. W., McDonald, A., Carrow, G. M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001499</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-001499</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Early experience with electronic prescribing of controlled substances in a community setting]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research and applications</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e44</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e51</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e52?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[A long-term follow-up evaluation of electronic health record prescribing safety]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e52?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>To be eligible for incentives through the Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program, many providers using older or locally developed EHRs will be transitioning to new, commercial EHRs. We previously evaluated prescribing errors made by providers in the first year following transition from a locally developed EHR with minimal prescribing clinical decision support (CDS) to a commercial EHR with robust CDS. Following system refinements, we conducted this study to assess the rates and types of errors 2&nbsp;years after transition and determine the evolution of errors.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Materials and methods</st>
<p>We conducted a mixed methods cross-sectional case study of 16 physicians at an academic-affiliated ambulatory clinic from April to June 2010. We utilized standardized prescription and chart review to identify errors. Fourteen providers also participated in interviews.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>We analyzed 1905 prescriptions. The overall prescribing error rate was 3.8 per 100 prescriptions (95% CI 2.8 to 5.1). Error rates were significantly lower 2&nbsp;years after transition (p&lt;0.001 compared to pre-implementation, 12&nbsp;weeks and 1&nbsp;year after transition). Rates of near misses remained unchanged. Providers positively appreciated most system refinements, particularly reduced alert firing.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Discussion</st>
<p>Our study suggests that over time and with system refinements, use of a commercial EHR with advanced CDS can lead to low prescribing error rates, although more serious errors may require targeted interventions to eliminate them. Reducing alert firing frequency appears particularly important. Our results provide support for federal efforts promoting meaningful use of EHRs.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Ongoing error monitoring can allow CDS to be optimally tailored and help achieve maximal safety benefits.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Clinical Trials Registration</st>
<p>ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT00603070.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Abramson, E. L., Malhotra, S., Osorio, S. N., Edwards, A., Cheriff, A., Cole, C., Kaushal, R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001328</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-001328</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[A long-term follow-up evaluation of electronic health record prescribing safety]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research and applications</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e52</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e58</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e59?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Paper- and computer-based workarounds to electronic health record use at three benchmark institutions]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e59?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Background</st>
<p>Healthcare professionals develop workarounds rather than using electronic health record (EHR) systems. Understanding the reasons for workarounds is important to facilitate user-centered design and alignment between work context and available health information technology tools.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>To examine both paper- and computer-based workarounds to the use of EHR systems in three benchmark institutions.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Qualitative data were collected in 11 primary care outpatient clinics across three healthcare institutions. Data collection methods included direct observation and opportunistic questions. In total, 120 clinic staff and providers and 118 patients were observed. All data were analyzed using previously developed workaround categories and examined for potential new categories. Additionally, workarounds were coded as either paper- or computer-based.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Findings corresponded to 10 of 11 workaround categories identified in previous research. All 10 of these categories applied to paper-based workarounds; five categories also applied to computer-based workarounds. One new category, no correct path (eg, a desired option did not exist in the computer interface, precipitating a workaround), was identified for computer-based workarounds. The most consistent reasons for workarounds across the three institutions were efficiency, memory, and awareness.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Consistent workarounds across institutions suggest common challenges in outpatient clinical settings and failures to accommodate these challenges in EHR design. An examination of workarounds provides insight into how providers adapt to limiting EHR systems. Part of the design process for computer interfaces should include user-centered methods particular to providers and healthcare settings to ensure uptake and usability.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Flanagan, M. E., Saleem, J. J., Millitello, L. G., Russ, A. L., Doebbeling, B. N.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-000982</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-000982</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Paper- and computer-based workarounds to electronic health record use at three benchmark institutions]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research and applications</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e59</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e66</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e67?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Using the computer in the clinical consultation; setting the stage, reviewing, recording, and taking actions: multi-channel video study]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e67?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Background and objective</st>
<p>Electronic patient record (EPR) systems are widely used. This study explores the context and use of systems to provide insights into improving their use in clinical practice.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>We used video to observe 163 consultations by 16 clinicians using four EPR brands. We made a visual study of the consultation room and coded interactions between clinician, patient, and computer. Few patients (6.9%, n=12) declined to participate.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Patients looked at the computer twice as much (47.6&nbsp;s vs 20.6&nbsp;s, p&lt;0.001) when it was within their gaze. A quarter of consultations were interrupted (27.6%, n=45); and in half the clinician left the room (12.3%, n=20). The core consultation takes about 87% of the total session time; 5% of time is spent pre-consultation, reading the record and calling the patient in; and 8% of time is spent post-consultation, largely entering notes. Consultations with more than one person and where prescribing took place were longer (R<sup>2</sup> adj=22.5%, p&lt;0.001). The core consultation can be divided into 61% of direct clinician&ndash;patient interaction, of which 15% is examination, 25% computer use with no patient involvement, and 14% simultaneous clinician&ndash;computer&ndash;patient interplay. The proportions of computer use are similar between consultations (mean=40.6%, SD=13.7%). There was more data coding in problem-orientated EPR systems, though clinicians often used vague codes.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>The EPR system is used for a consistent proportion of the consultation and should be designed to facilitate multi-tasking. Clinicians who want to promote screen sharing should change their consulting room layout.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kumarapeli, P., de Lusignan, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001081</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-001081</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Using the computer in the clinical consultation; setting the stage, reviewing, recording, and taking actions: multi-channel video study]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research and applications</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e67</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e75</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e76?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA['Too much, too late': mixed methods multi-channel video recording study of computerized decision support systems and GP prescribing]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e76?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>Computerized decision support systems (CDSS) are commonly deployed to support prescribing, although over-riding of alerts by prescribers remains a concern. We aimed to understand how general practitioners (GPs) interact with prescribing CDSS in order to inform deliberation on how better to support prescribing decisions in primary care.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Materials and methods</st>
<p>Quantitative and qualitative analysis of interactions between GPs, patients, and computer systems using multi-channel video recordings of 112 primary care consultations with eight GPs in three UK practices.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>132 prescriptions were issued in the course of 73 of the consultations, of which 81 (61%) attracted at least one alert. Of the total of 117 alerts, only three resulted in the GP checking, but not altering, the prescription. CDSS provided information and safety alerts at the point of generating a prescription. This was &lsquo;too much, too late&rsquo; as the majority of the &lsquo;work&rsquo; of prescribing occurred prior to using the computer. By the time an alert appeared, the GP had formulated the problem(s), potentially spent several minutes considering, explaining, negotiating, and reaching agreement with the patient about the proposed treatment, and had possibly given instructions and printed an information leaflet.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Discussion</st>
<p>CDSS alerts do not coincide with the prescribing workflow throughout the whole GP consultation. Current systems interrupt to correct decisions that have already been taken, rather than assisting formulation of the management plan.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>CDSS are likely to be more acceptable and effective if the prescribing support is provided much earlier in the process of generating a prescription.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hayward, J., Thomson, F., Milne, H., Buckingham, S., Sheikh, A., Fernando, B., Cresswell, K., Williams, R., Pinnock, H.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001484</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-001484</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA['Too much, too late': mixed methods multi-channel video recording study of computerized decision support systems and GP prescribing]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research and applications</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e76</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e84</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e85?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Relationship between medication event rates and the Leapfrog computerized physician order entry evaluation tool]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e85?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>The Leapfrog CPOE evaluation tool has been promoted as a means of monitoring computerized physician order entry (CPOE). We sought to determine the relationship between Leapfrog scores and the rates of preventable adverse drug events (ADE) and potential ADE.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Materials and methods</st>
<p>A cross-sectional study of 1000 adult admissions in five community hospitals from October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2010 was performed. Observed rates of preventable ADE and potential ADE were compared with scores reported by the Leapfrog CPOE evaluation tool. The primary outcome was the rate of preventable ADE and the secondary outcome was the composite rate of preventable ADE and potential ADE.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Leapfrog performance scores were highly related to the primary outcome. A 43% relative reduction in the rate of preventable ADE was predicted for every 5% increase in Leapfrog scores (rate ratio 0.57; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.88). In absolute terms, four fewer preventable ADE per 100 admissions were predicted for every 5% increase in overall Leapfrog scores (rate difference &ndash;4.2; 95% CI &ndash;7.4 to &ndash;1.1). A statistically significant relationship between Leapfrog scores and the secondary outcome, however, was not detected.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Discussion</st>
<p>Our findings support the use of the Leapfrog tool as a means of evaluating and monitoring CPOE performance after implementation, as addressed by current certification standards.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Scores from the Leapfrog CPOE evaluation tool closely relate to actual rates of preventable ADE. Leapfrog testing may alert providers to potential vulnerabilities and highlight areas for further improvement.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Leung, A. A., Keohane, C., Lipsitz, S., Zimlichman, E., Amato, M., Simon, S. R., Coffey, M., Kaufman, N., Cadet, B., Schiff, G., Seger, D. L., Bates, D. W.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001549</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-001549</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Relationship between medication event rates and the Leapfrog computerized physician order entry evaluation tool]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research and applications</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e85</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e90</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e91?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Quality improvement in preoperative assessment by implementation of an electronic decision support tool]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e91?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>To evaluate the impact of the electronic decision support (eDS) tool &lsquo;PReOPerative evaluation&rsquo; (PROP) on guideline adherence in preoperative assessment in statutory health care in Salzburg, Austria.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Materials and methods</st>
<p>The evaluation was designed as a non-randomized controlled trial with a historical control group (CG). In 2007, we consecutively recruited 1363 patients admitted for elective surgery, and evaluated the preoperative assessment. In 2008, PROP was implemented and available online. In 2009 we recruited 1148 patients preoperatively assessed using PROP (294 outpatients, 854 hospital sector). Our analysis includes full blood count, liver function tests, coagulation parameters, electrolytes, ECG, and chest x-ray.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>The number of tests/patient without indication was 3.39 in the CG vs 0.60 in the intervention group (IG) (p&lt;0.001). 97.8% (CG) vs 31.5% (IG) received at least one unnecessary test. However, we also observed an increase in recommended tests not performed/patient (0.05&plusmn;0.27 (CG) vs 0.55&plusmn;1.00 (IG), p&lt;0.001). 4.2% (CG) vs 30.1% (IG) missed at least one necessary test. The guideline adherence (correctly tested/not tested) improved distinctively for all tests (1.6% (CG) vs 49.3% (IG), p&lt;0.001).</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Discussion</st>
<p>PROP reduced the number of unnecessary tests/patient by 2.79 which implied a reduction of patients&rsquo; burden, and a relevant cut in unnecessary costs. However, the advantage in specificity caused an increase in the number of patients incorrectly not tested. Further research is required regarding the impact of PROP on perioperative outcomes.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Flamm, M., Fritsch, G., Hysek, M., Klausner, S., Entacher, K., Panisch, S., Soennichsen, A. C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001178</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-001178</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Quality improvement in preoperative assessment by implementation of an electronic decision support tool]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research and applications</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e91</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e96</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e97?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Meaningful measurement: developing a measurement system to improve blood pressure control in patients with chronic kidney disease]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e97?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>To develop an electronic registry of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) treated in a nephrology practice in order to provide clinically meaningful measurement and population management to improve rates of blood pressure (BP) control.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>We combined data from multiple electronic sources: the billing system, structured fields in the electronic health record (EHR), and free text physician notes using natural language processing (NLP). We also used point-of-care worksheets to capture clinical rationale.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Nephrologist billing accurately identified patients with CKD. Using an algorithm that incorporated multiple BP readings increased the measured rate of control (130/80&nbsp;mm&nbsp;Hg) from 37.1% to 42.3%. With the addition of NLP to capture BP readings from free text notes, the rate was 52.6%. Data from point-of-care worksheets indicated that in 52% of visits in which patients were identified as not having controlled BP, patients were actually at goal based on BP readings taken at home or on that day in the office.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Building a method for clinically meaningful continuous performance measurement of BP control is possible, but will require data from multiple sources. Electronic measurement systems need to grow to be able to capture and process performance data from patients as well as in real-time from physicians.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Greenberg, J. O., Vakharia, N., Szent-Gyorgyi, L. E., Desai, S. P., Turchin, A., Forman, J., Bonventre, J. V., Kachalia, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001308</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-001308</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Meaningful measurement: developing a measurement system to improve blood pressure control in patients with chronic kidney disease]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research and applications</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e97</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e101</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e102?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[An ontology-driven, diagnostic modeling system]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e102?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>To present a system that uses knowledge stored in a medical ontology to automate the development of diagnostic decision support systems. To illustrate its function through an example focused on the development of a tool for diagnosing pneumonia.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Materials and methods</st>
<p>We developed a system that automates the creation of diagnostic decision-support applications. It relies on a medical ontology to direct the acquisition of clinic data from a clinical data warehouse and uses an automated analytic system to apply a sequence of machine learning algorithms that create applications for diagnostic screening. We refer to this system as the ontology-driven diagnostic modeling system (ODMS). We tested this system using samples of patient data collected in Salt Lake City emergency rooms and stored in Intermountain Healthcare&rsquo;s enterprise data warehouse.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>The system was used in the preliminary development steps of a tool to identify patients with pneumonia in the emergency department. This tool was compared with a manually created diagnostic tool derived from a curated dataset. The manually created tool is currently in clinical use. The automatically created tool had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.920 (95% CI 0.916 to 0.924), compared with 0.944 (95% CI 0.942 to 0.947) for the manually created tool.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Discussion</st>
<p>Initial testing of the ODMS demonstrates promising accuracy for the highly automated results and illustrates the route to model improvement.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>The use of medical knowledge, embedded in ontologies, to direct the initial development of diagnostic computing systems appears feasible.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Haug, P. J., Ferraro, J. P., Holmen, J., Wu, X., Mynam, K., Ebert, M., Dean, N., Jones, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001376</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-001376</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[An ontology-driven, diagnostic modeling system]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research and applications</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e102</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e110</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e111?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Computer-aided diagnosis of pneumonia in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e111?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Background</st>
<p>Early diagnosis of pneumonia and discrimination between this disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations in patients with COPD are crucial for optimal clinical management and treatment.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>To examine the use of computerized analysis of respiratory sounds, a hybrid system based on principal component analysis (PCA) and probabilistic neural networks (PNNs), to aid the detection of coexisting pneumonia in patients with COPD.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods and materials</st>
<p>A convenience sample of 58 patients with COPD (25 patients hospitalized for community-acquired pneumonia and 33 owing to acute exacerbation of COPD) was studied. Auscultations were performed by the patients themselves on their suprasternal notch. Short-time Fourier transform analysis was used to extract features from the recorded respiratory sounds, PCA was selected for dimensionality reduction and a PNN was trained as classifier. 10-Fold cross-validation and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were used to estimate the system performance.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Based on the cross-validation results, a sensitivity and a specificity of 72% and 81.8%, respectively, were achieved in validation data. The operating point was selected to maximize the specificity and sensitivity pair in the training set.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Discussion</st>
<p>The results strongly suggest that electronic self-auscultation at a single location (suprasternal notch) can support diagnosis of pneumonia in patients with COPD.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>A simple, cost-effective method has been proposed to aid decision-making in areas with no radiological facilities available and in resource-constrained settings, and could have a great diagnostic impact on telemedicine applications.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sanchez Morillo, D., Leon Jimenez, A., Moreno, S. A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001171</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-001171</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Computer-aided diagnosis of pneumonia in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research and applications</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e111</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e117</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e118?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Development of a 5 year life expectancy index in older adults using predictive mining of electronic health record data]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e118?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>Incorporating accurate life expectancy predictions into clinical decision making could improve quality and decrease costs, but few providers do this. We sought to use predictive data mining and high dimensional analytics of electronic health record (EHR) data to develop a highly accurate and clinically actionable 5 year life expectancy index.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Materials and methods</st>
<p>We developed the index using EHR data for 7463 patients &ge;50&nbsp;years old with &ge;1 visit(s) in 2003 to a large, academic, multispecialty group practice. We extracted 980 attributes from the EHRs of the practices and affiliated hospitals. Correlation feature selection with greedy stepwise search was used to find the attribute subset with best average merit. Rotation forest ensembling with alternating decision tree as underlying classifier was used to predict 5&nbsp;year mortality. Model performance was compared with the modified Charlson Comorbidity Index and the Walter life expectancy method.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Within 5&nbsp;years of the last visit in 2003, 838 (11%) patients had died. The final model included 24 attributes: two demographic (age, sex), 10 comorbidity (eg, cardiovascular disease), one vital sign (mean diastolic blood pressure), two medications (loop diuretic use, digoxin use), six laboratory (eg, mean albumin), and three healthcare utilization (eg, the number of hospitalizations 1&nbsp;year prior to the last visit in 2003). The index showed very good discrimination (c-statistic 0.86) and outperformed comparators.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>The EHR based index successfully distinguished adults &ge;50&nbsp;years old with life expectancy &gt;5&nbsp;years from those with life expectancy &le;5&nbsp;years. This information could be used clinically to optimize preventive service use (eg, cancer screening in the elderly).</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mathias, J. S., Agrawal, A., Feinglass, J., Cooper, A. J., Baker, D. W., Choudhary, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001360</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-001360</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Development of a 5 year life expectancy index in older adults using predictive mining of electronic health record data]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research and applications</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e118</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e124</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e125?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Geographical distribution of patients visiting a health information exchange in New York City]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e125?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>For a health information exchange (HIE) organization to succeed in any given region, it is important to understand the optimal catchment area for the patient population it is serving. The objective of this analysis was to understand the geographical distribution of the patients being served by one HIE organization in New York City (NYC).</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Materials and Methods</st>
<p>Patient demographic data were obtained from the New York Clinical Information Exchange (NYCLIX), a regional health information organization (RHIO) representing most of the major medical centers in the borough of Manhattan in NYC. Patients&rsquo; home address zip codes were used to create a research dataset with aggregate counts of patients by US county and international standards organization country. Times Square was designated as the geographical center point of the RHIO for distance calculations.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Most patients (87.7%) live within a 30 mile radius from Times Square and there was a precipitous drop off of patients visiting RHIO-affiliated facilities at distances greater than 100 miles. 43.6% of patients visiting NYCLIX facilities were from the other NYC boroughs rather than from Manhattan itself (31.9%).</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Discussion</st>
<p>Most patients who seek care at members of NYCLIX live within a well-defined area and a clear decrease in patients visiting NYCLIX sites with distance was identified. Understanding the geographical distribution of patients visiting the large medical centers in the RHIO can inform the RHIO's planning as it looks to add new participant organizations in the surrounding geographical area.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Onyile, A., Vaidya, S. R., Kuperman, G., Shapiro, J. S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001217</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-001217</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Open access]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Geographical distribution of patients visiting a health information exchange in New York City]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research and applications</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e125</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e130</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e131?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[A system dynamics evaluation model: implementation of health information exchange for public health reporting]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e131?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>To evaluate the complex dynamics involved in implementing electronic health information exchange (HIE) for public health reporting at a state health department, and to identify policy implications to inform similar implementations.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Materials and methods</st>
<p>Qualitative data were collected over 8&nbsp;months from seven experts at New York State Department of Health who implemented web services and protocols for querying, receipt, and validation of electronic data supplied by regional health information organizations. Extensive project documentation was also collected. During group meetings experts described the implementation process and created reference modes and causal diagrams that the evaluation team used to build a preliminary model. System dynamics modeling techniques were applied iteratively to build causal loop diagrams representing the implementation. The diagrams were validated iteratively by individual experts followed by group review online, and through confirmatory review of documents and artifacts.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Three casual loop diagrams captured well-recognized system dynamics: Sliding Goals, Project Rework, and Maturity of Resources. The findings were associated with specific policies that address funding, leadership, ensuring expertise, planning for rework, communication, and timeline management.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Discussion</st>
<p>This evaluation illustrates the value of a qualitative approach to system dynamics modeling. As a tool for strategic thinking on complicated and intense processes, qualitative models can be produced with fewer resources than a full simulation, yet still provide insights that are timely and relevant.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>System dynamics techniques clarified endogenous and exogenous factors at play in a highly complex technology implementation, which may inform other states engaged in implementing HIE supported by federal Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) legislation.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Merrill, J. A., Deegan, M., Wilson, R. V., Kaushal, R., Fredericks, K.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001289</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-001289</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[A system dynamics evaluation model: implementation of health information exchange for public health reporting]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research and applications</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e131</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e138</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e139?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Regional Healthcare Ecosystem Analyst (RHEA): a simulation modeling tool to assist infectious disease control in a health system]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e139?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>As healthcare systems continue to expand and interconnect with each other through patient sharing, administrators, policy makers, infection control specialists, and other decision makers may have to take account of the entire healthcare &lsquo;ecosystem&rsquo; in infection control.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Materials and methods</st>
<p>We developed a software tool, the Regional Healthcare Ecosystem Analyst (RHEA), that can accept user-inputted data to rapidly create a detailed agent-based simulation model (ABM) of the healthcare ecosystem (ie, all healthcare facilities, their adjoining community, and patient flow among the facilities) of any region to better understand the spread and control of infectious diseases.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>To demonstrate RHEA's capabilities, we fed extensive data from Orange County, California, USA, into RHEA to create an ABM of a healthcare ecosystem and simulate the spread and control of methicillin-resistant <I>Staphylococcus aureus</I>. Various experiments explored the effects of changing different parameters (eg, degree of transmission, length of stay, and bed capacity).</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Discussion</st>
<p>Our model emphasizes how individual healthcare facilities are components of integrated and dynamic networks connected via patient movement and how occurrences in one healthcare facility may affect many other healthcare facilities.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>A decision maker can utilize RHEA to generate a detailed ABM of any healthcare system of interest, which in turn can serve as a virtual laboratory to test different policies and interventions.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lee, B. Y., Wong, K. F., Bartsch, S. M., Yilmaz, S. L., Avery, T. R., Brown, S. T., Song, Y., Singh, A., Kim, D. S., Huang, S. S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001107</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-001107</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Regional Healthcare Ecosystem Analyst (RHEA): a simulation modeling tool to assist infectious disease control in a health system]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research and applications</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e139</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e146</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e147?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Validation of electronic medical record-based phenotyping algorithms: results and lessons learned from the eMERGE network]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e147?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Background</st>
<p>Genetic studies require precise phenotype definitions, but electronic medical record (EMR) phenotype data are recorded inconsistently and in a variety of formats.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>To present lessons learned about validation of EMR-based phenotypes from the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) studies.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Materials and methods</st>
<p>The eMERGE network created and validated 13 EMR-derived phenotype algorithms. Network sites are Group Health, Marshfield Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Northwestern University, and Vanderbilt University.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>By validating EMR-derived phenotypes we learned that: (1) multisite validation improves phenotype algorithm accuracy; (2) targets for validation should be carefully considered and defined; (3) specifying time frames for review of variables eases validation time and improves accuracy; (4) using repeated measures requires defining the relevant time period and specifying the most meaningful value to be studied; (5) patient movement in and out of the health plan (transience) can result in incomplete or fragmented data; (6) the review scope should be defined carefully; (7) particular care is required in combining EMR and research data; (8) medication data can be assessed using claims, medications dispensed, or medications prescribed; (9) algorithm development and validation work best as an iterative process; and (10) validation by content experts or structured chart review can provide accurate results.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Despite the diverse structure of the five EMRs of the eMERGE sites, we developed, validated, and successfully deployed 13 electronic phenotype algorithms. Validation is a worthwhile process that not only measures phenotype performance but also strengthens phenotype algorithm definitions and enhances their inter-institutional sharing.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Newton, K. M., Peissig, P. L., Kho, A. N., Bielinski, S. J., Berg, R. L., Choudhary, V., Basford, M., Chute, C. G., Kullo, I. J., Li, R., Pacheco, J. A., Rasmussen, L. V., Spangler, L., Denny, J. C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-000896</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-000896</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Editor''s choice]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Validation of electronic medical record-based phenotyping algorithms: results and lessons learned from the eMERGE network]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research and applications</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e147</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e154</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e155?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Federated queries of clinical data repositories: the sum of the parts does not equal the whole]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e155?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Background and objective</st>
<p>In 2008 we developed a shared health research information network (SHRINE), which for the first time enabled research queries across the full patient populations of four Boston hospitals. It uses a federated architecture, where each hospital returns only the aggregate count of the number of patients who match a query. This allows hospitals to retain control over their local databases and comply with federal and state privacy laws. However, because patients may receive care from multiple hospitals, the result of a federated query might differ from what the result would be if the query were run against a single central repository. This paper describes the situations when this happens and presents a technique for correcting these errors.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>We use a one-time process of identifying which patients have data in multiple repositories by comparing one-way hash values of patient demographics. This enables us to partition the local databases such that all patients within a given partition have data at the same subset of hospitals. Federated queries are then run separately on each partition independently, and the combined results are presented to the user.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Using theoretical bounds and simulated hospital networks, we demonstrate that once the partitions are made, SHRINE can produce more precise estimates of the number of patients matching a query.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Uncertainty in the overlap of patient populations across hospitals limits the effectiveness of SHRINE and other federated query tools. Our technique reduces this uncertainty while retaining an aggregate federated architecture.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Weber, G. M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001299</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-001299</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Federated queries of clinical data repositories: the sum of the parts does not equal the whole]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research and applications</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e155</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e161</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e162?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Creation and implementation of a historical controls database from randomized clinical trials]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e162?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Background</st>
<p>Ethical concerns about randomly assigning patients to suboptimal or placebo arms and the paucity of willing participants for randomization into control and experimental groups have renewed focus on the use of historical controls in clinical trials. Although databases of historical controls have been advocated, no published reports have described the technical and informatics issues involved in their creation.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>To create a historical controls database by leveraging internal clinical trial data at Pfizer, focusing on patients who received only placebo in randomized controlled trials.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>We transformed disparate clinical data sources by indexing, developing, and integrating clinical data within internal databases and archives. We focused primarily on trials mapped into a consistent standard and trials in the pain therapeutic area as a pilot.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Of the more than 20&nbsp;000 internal Pfizer clinical trials, 2404 completed placebo controlled studies with a parallel design were identified. Due to challenges with informed consent and data standards used in older clinical trials, studies completed before 2000 were excluded, yielding 1134 studies from which placebo subjects and associated clinical data were extracted.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>It is technically feasible to pool portions of placebo populations through a stratification and segmentation approach for a historical placebo group database. A sufficiently large placebo controls database would enable previous distribution calculations on representative populations to supplement, not eliminate, the placebo arm of future clinical trials. Creation of an industry-wide placebo controls database, utilizing a universal standard, beyond the borders of Pfizer would add significant efficiencies to the clinical trial and drug development process.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Desai, J. R., Bowen, E. A., Danielson, M. M., Allam, R. R., Cantor, M. N.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001257</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-001257</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Creation and implementation of a historical controls database from randomized clinical trials]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research and applications</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e162</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e168</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e169?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Evaluating adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' policy of mandatory, timely clinical trial registration]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e169?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>To determine whether two specific criteria in Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts (URM) created by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)&mdash;namely, including the trial ID registration within manuscripts and timely registration of trials, are being followed.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Materials and methods</st>
<p>Observational study using computerized analysis of publicly available Medline article data and clinical trial registry data. We analyzed a purposive set of five ICMJE founding journals looking at all trial articles published in those journals during 2010&ndash;2011, and data from the ClinicalTrials.gov (CTG) trial registry. We measured adherence to trial ID inclusion policy as the percentage of trial journal articles that contained a valid trial ID within the article (journal-based sample). Adherence to timely registration was measured as the percentage of trials that registered the trial before enrolling the first participant within a 60-day grace period. We also examined timely registration rates by year of all phase II and higher interventional trials in CTG (registry-based sample).</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>To determine trial ID inclusion, we analyzed 698 clinical trial articles in five journals. A total of 95.8% (661/690) of trial journal articles included the trial ID. In 88.3% the trial-article link is stored within a structured Medline field. To evaluate timely registration, we analyzed trials referenced by 451 articles from the selected five journals. A total of 60% (272/451) of articles were registered in a timely manner with an improving trend for trials initiated in later years (eg, 89% of trials that began in 2008 were registered in a timely manner). In the registry-based sample, the timely registration rates ranged from 56% for trials registered in 2006 to 72% for trials registered in 2011.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Discussion</st>
<p>Adherence to URM requirements for registration and trial ID inclusion increases the utility of PubMed and links it in an important way to clinical trial repositories. This new integrated knowledge source can facilitate research prioritization, clinical guidelines creation, and precision medicine.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>The five selected journals adhere well to the policy of mandatory trial registration and also outperform the registry in adherence to timely registration. ICMJE's URM policy represents a unique international mandate that may be providing a powerful incentive for sponsors and investigators to document clinical trials and trial result publications and thus fulfill important obligations to trial participants and society.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Huser, V., Cimino, J. J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001501</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-001501</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Evaluating adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' policy of mandatory, timely clinical trial registration]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research and applications</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e169</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e174</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e175?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The next-generation electronic health record: perspectives of key leaders from the US Department of Veterans Affairs]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e175?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>The rapid change in healthcare has focused attention on the necessary development of a next-generation electronic health record (EHR) to support system transformation and more effective patient-centered care. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is developing plans for the next-generation EHR to support improved care delivery for veterans. To understand the needs for a next-generation EHR, we interviewed 14 VA operational, clinical and informatics leaders for their vision about system needs. Leaders consistently identified priorities for development in the areas of cognitive support, information synthesis, teamwork and communication, interoperability, data availability, usability, customization, and information management. The need to reconcile different EHR initiatives currently underway in the VA, as well as opportunities for data sharing, will be critical for continued progress. These findings may support the VA's effort for evolutionary change to its information system and draw attention to necessary research and development for a next-generation information system and EHR nationally.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Saleem, J. J., Flanagan, M. E., Wilck, N. R., Demetriades, J., Doebbeling, B. N.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001748</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2013-001748</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The next-generation electronic health record: perspectives of key leaders from the US Department of Veterans Affairs]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Brief communication</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e175</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e177</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e178?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Implementing an interface terminology for structured clinical documentation]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e178?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Clinically oriented interface terminologies support interactions between humans and computer programs that accept structured entry of healthcare information. This manuscript describes efforts over the past decade to introduce an interface terminology called CHISL (Categorical Health Information Structured Lexicon) into clinical practice as part of a computer-based documentation application at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Vanderbilt supports a spectrum of electronic documentation modalities, ranging from transcribed dictation, to a partial template of free-form notes, to strict, structured data capture. Vanderbilt encourages clinicians to use what they perceive as the most appropriate form of clinical note entry for each given clinical situation. In this setting, CHISL occupies an important niche in clinical documentation. This manuscript reports challenges developers faced in deploying CHISL, and discusses observations about its usage, but does not review other relevant work in the field.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rosenbloom, S. T., Miller, R. A., Adams, P., Madani, S., Khan, N., Shultz, E. K.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001384</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-001384</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Implementing an interface terminology for structured clinical documentation]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Brief communication</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e178</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e182</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e183?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Hand-gesture-based sterile interface for the operating room using contextual cues for the navigation of radiological images]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e183?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This paper presents a method to improve the navigation and manipulation of radiological images through a sterile hand gesture recognition interface based on attentional contextual cues. Computer vision algorithms were developed to extract intention and attention cues from the surgeon's behavior and combine them with sensory data from a commodity depth camera. The developed interface was tested in a usability experiment to assess the effectiveness of the new interface. An image navigation and manipulation task was performed, and the gesture recognition accuracy, false positives and task completion times were computed to evaluate system performance. Experimental results show that gesture interaction and surgeon behavior analysis can be used to accurately navigate, manipulate and access MRI images, and therefore this modality could replace the use of keyboard and mice-based interfaces.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jacob, M. G., Wachs, J. P., Packer, R. A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001212</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-001212</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Hand-gesture-based sterile interface for the operating room using contextual cues for the navigation of radiological images]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Brief communication</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e183</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e186</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e187?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The hazard of software updates to clinical workstations: a natural experiment]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e187?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Emergency department (ED) electronic tracking boards provide a snapshot view of patient status and a quick link to other clinical applications, such as a web-based image viewer client to view current and previous radiology images from the picture archiving and communication systems (PACS). We describe a case where an update to Microsoft Internet Explorer severed the link between the ED tracking board and web-based image viewer. The loss of this link resulted in decreased web-based image viewer access rates for ED patients during the 10&nbsp;days of the incident (2.8 views/study) compared with image review rates for a similar 10-day period preceding this event (3.8 views/study, p&lt;0.001). Single-click user interfaces that transfer user and patient contexts are efficient mechanisms to link disparate clinical systems. Maintaining hazard analyses and rigorously testing all software updates to clinical workstations, including seemingly minor web-browser updates, are important to minimize the risk of unintended consequences.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Landman, A. B., Takhar, S. S., Wang, S. L., Cardoso, A., Kosowsky, J. M., Raja, A. S., Khorasani, R., Poon, E. G.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001494</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-001494</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The hazard of software updates to clinical workstations: a natural experiment]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Case report</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e187</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e190</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e191?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Shining a little light and a little heat on the issue of EHRs and fraud]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e191?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>There was a flurry of public attention concerning electronic health records (EHRs) and fraud during a single week in September 2012. First, the Center for Public Integrity, a non-profit investigative news organization, published a study that showed an increase in Medicare billings concomitant with the switch to EHRs. A front-page article in <I>The New York Times</I> followed on the same subject. Then an hour on National Public Radio (NPR) was devoted to the pros and cons of EHRs and cited both publications. Finally, an editorial in <I>The New York Times</I> discussed EHR abuse and called for action to prevent fraud from detracting from the positive effects of EHR implementation. Although it was widely acknowledged that, indeed, billings, particularly E&amp;M code levels, had increased after hospitals and practices had switched to EHRs, there were mixed opinions as to how much of this increase represented legitimate improvements in documentation and even...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Simborg, D. W.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001369</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2012-001369</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Shining a little light and a little heat on the issue of EHRs and fraud]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>PostScript</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e191</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e192</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e193?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[AMIA board of directors response to Simborg perspective]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e193?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <sec> <p>Systematic clinical documentation, the recording of observations and impressions resulting from healthcare, began over 200&nbsp;years ago.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> The purpose of clinical documentation has varied over the years and currently supports communication among the care team members, teaching, research, and medical billing.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R1">1</cross-ref> Computer-based documentation (CBD) has been in place at leading informatics institutions for decades, and its prevalence will increase due to the Meaningful Use program. CBD is associated with numerous positive factors, including that it can be accessible remotely, can be more easily used for research and operational management, can better support team-based care, and can better support healthcare providers&rsquo; decision making.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="R2">2</cross-ref> However, CBD use carries with it some important challenges. For example, CBD can be more time consuming than paper-based or dictation-based clinical documentation. Also, CBD often imports electronic data from other parts of the patient's chart to increase completeness, but can...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kuperman, G. J., Rosenbloom, S. T., Stetson, P. D.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001670</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2013-001670</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[AMIA board of directors response to Simborg perspective]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>PostScript</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e193</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e194</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e195?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[EHRs and clinical documentation to optimize patient care]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/20/e1/e195?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <sec id="s1"><st>Introduction</st> <p>Electronic health records (EHRs) are important tools for the proper documentation and administration of clinical care. When combined with quality improvement capabilities such as clinical decision support, population health management analytics, and quality measurement, EHRs can greatly enhance the quality of care delivered. As with any tool, EHRs can be used to improve the efficiency and completeness of documentation in support of good care and good billing practices or for less laudable aims.</p> <p>Preventing and reducing fraud and abuse is a societal goal that EHRs can support. As Secretary Sebelius and Attorney General Holder stated in a letter to hospital and health system leaders, &lsquo;false documentation of care is not just bad patient care; it's illegal.&rsquo; While the primary focus of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) is on improving patient care, we have made a great deal of progress and will...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel, J. G., Reider, J. M., Posnack, S. L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-05-16T19:12:27-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001669</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2013-001669</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[EHRs and clinical documentation to optimize patient care]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2013-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>PostScript</prism:section>
<prism:volume>20</prism:volume>
<prism:number>e1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>e195</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>e196</prism:endingPage>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>