RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comparative Analysis of Three Surveys on Primary Care Providers’ Experiences with Interoperability and Electronic Health Records
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.01.02.24300713
DO 10.1101/2024.01.02.24300713
A1 Hendrix, Nathaniel
A1 Maisel, Natalya
A1 Everson, Jordan
A1 Patel, Vaishali
A1 Bazemore, Andrew
A1 Rotenstein, Lisa S.
A1 Holmgren, A Jay
A1 Krist, Alex H.
A1 Adler-Milstein, Julia
A1 Phillips, Robert L.
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/03/2024.01.02.24300713.abstract
AB Objective This 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 Francisco’s (UCSF) Physician Health IT Survey, and the 2021 National Electronic Health Records Survey (NEHRS).Materials and Methods We 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.Results CCQ 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.Discussion All 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.Conclusion Diversified data sources, such as those from specialty boards, may aid in capturing physicians’ experiences with EHRs and interoperability.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis research was funded by the United States Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Department of Health and Human Services, Cooperative Agreement Grant # 90AX0032/01-02Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:IRB of American Academy of Family Practice waived ethical approval for this work. IRB of University of California San Francisco waived ethical approval for this work.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.Yes