Comparative Analysis of Three Surveys on Primary Care Providers' Experiences with Interoperability and Electronic Health Records
Hendrix, N.; Maisel, N.; Everson, J.; Patel, V.; Bazemore, A.; Rotenstein, L.; Holmgren, A. J.; Krist, A. H.; Adler-Milstein, J.; Phillips, R. L.
Show abstract
ObjectiveThis study compared primary care physicians self-reported experiences with Electronic Health Records (EHR) interoperability, as reported across three surveys: the 2022 Continuous Certification Questionnaire (CCQ) from the American Board of Family Medicine, the 2022 University of California San Franciscos (UCSF) Physician Health IT Survey, and the 2021 National Electronic Health Records Survey (NEHRS). Materials and MethodsWe used descriptive analyses to identify differences between survey pairs. To account for weighting in NEHRS and UCSF, we assessed the significance of differences using the Rao-Scott corrected chi-square test. ResultsCCQ received 3,991 responses, UCSF received 1,375 from primary care physicians, and NEHRS received 858 responses from primary care physicians. Response rates were 100%, 3.6%, and 18.2%, respectively. Substantial and largely statistically significant differences in response were detected across the three surveys. For instance, 22.2% of CCQ respondents said it was very easy to document care in their EHR, compared to 15.2% in NEHRS, and 14.8% in the UCSF survey. Approximately one-third of respondents across surveys said documenting care in their EHR was somewhat or very difficult. The surveys captured different respondent types with CCQ respondents trending younger, and NEHRS respondents more likely to be in private practice. DiscussionAll surveys pointed to room for improvement in EHR usability and interoperability. The differences observed, likely driven by differences in survey methodology and response bias, were likely substantial enough to impact policy decisions. ConclusionDiversified data sources, such as those from specialty boards, may aid in capturing physicians experiences with EHRs and interoperability.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Development of the Tool for Advancing Practice Performance, a practice-level survey to assess primary care structures and processes 94%
- Essential Indicators of Quality in Primary Care Settings: An Evidence-Based, Structured, Expert Approach 94%
- Wading through Molasses: A qualitative examination of the experiences, perceptions, attitudes, and knowledge of Australian medical practitioners regarding medical billing 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Impact of Primary Care Team Configuration on Access and Quality of Care 94%
- Association of patients’ past misdiagnosis experiences with trust in their current physician: the TRUMP 2 -Net study 92%
- An Evaluation of the Vulnerable Physician Workforce in the United States During the Coronavirus Disease-19 Pandemic 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Physician experiences of electronic health records interoperability and its practical impact on care delivery in the English NHS: A cross-sectional survey study 95%
- Pre-Post Analysis of the Impact of British Columbia Nurse Practitioner Primary Care Clinics on Patient Health and Care Experience 92%
- What is the suitability of clinical vignettes in benchmarking the performance of online symptom checkers? An audit study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- User Testing of a Diagnostic Decision Support System with Machine-assisted Chart Review to Facilitate Clinical Genomic Diagnosis 93%
- Measures of socioeconomic advantage are not independent predictors of support for healthcare AI: subgroup analysis of a national Australian survey 93%
- Connecting Artificial Intelligence and Primary Care Challenges: Findings from a Multi-Stakeholder Collaborative Consultation 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.