Slide 1

Effects of Health Information Technology on Ambulatory Care: Results from New York State Lisa M. Kern, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Public Health and Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College Deputy Director, Health Information Technology Evaluation Collaborative HITEC

Slide 2

What is Unique about Health IT in New York State? The Healthcare Efficiency and Affordability Law for New Yorkers (HEAL NY) $250 million investment in interoperable EHRs began in 2005 With additional matching funds Focused around communities 8 times larger than the next largest state based investment 2

Slide 3

Why Evaluate? HIT is not just one intervention. Software, hardware, configuration, training, users and compliance can all vary across implementation efforts. Understanding what works, what does not and why is critical for shaping future implementation efforts. Standardizing evaluations maximizes the lessons learned. 3

Slide 4

Health Information Technology Evaluation Collaborative (HITEC) Academic collaborative across 4 universities in New York State Established to conduct rigorous, independent evaluations of New Yorks health IT initiatives Directed by Drs. Rainu Kaushal, Lisa Kern and Jessica Ancker 4

Slide 5

Overview of 4 Early Studies 1.An organizational survey of HEAL 1 grantees Funded by the Commonwealth Fund 2.Electronic prescribing and medication safety Funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) 3.Electronic laboratory result viewing and quality Funded by AHRQ 4.Development of quality metrics for interoperable EHRs Funded by AHRQ 5

Slide 6

1. HITEC Survey of HEAL 1 Grantees Organizational assessment of HEAL 1 grantees At baseline and follow-up (2 years after award announcement) 100% response rate 100% of grantees still existed 100% implementing or attempting to implement interoperable health IT Kern, Barrn, Abramson, Patel, Kaushal. Health Affairs. 2009 6

Slide 7

HEAL 1 Grantees with Various Project Goals and the Presence of Users at Follow-up (N = 26) 26 9 22 17 13 9 17 12 8 Kern, Barrn, Abramson, Patel, Kaushal. Health Affairs. 2009 7

Slide 8

8 Policy Implications 1.Financial sustainability is a major concern, despite HEAL NY funding. 2.Concerns about technical issues and workflow integration are high. 3.Communities require long periods of time to adopt health IT and HIE. 4.New York State considered organization and governance to be extremely important.

Slide 9

2. Electronic Prescribing: Overview Aim: To compare the effects of 2 e-prescribing applications (stand-alone and integrated into an EHR) on medication errors Versus paper-based prescribing Design: Prospective cohort study (pre-post) with concurrent controls Sample sizes: 78 primary care physicians 13,596 patients 9,452 prescriptions 5,968 medication errors Kaushal, Kern, Barrn, Abramson. J Gen Intern Med 2010 March. 9

Slide 10

Electronic Prescribing: Results Errors per 100 prescriptions 37.3 38.4 42.5 6.6 26.0 16.0 * * P < 0.001 10

Slide 11

Policy Implications Prescribing errors are very common Stand alone e-prescribing versus integrated into an EHR 11

Slide 12

3. Electronic Laboratory Result Viewing Aim: To determine any associations between use of an electronic portal for result viewing and quality of care Design: Prospective cohort study of 168 primary care physicians Kern, Barrn, Blair, Salkowe, Chambers, Callahan, Kaushal. J Gen Intern Med. 2008. 12

Slide 13

3. Electronic Laboratory Result Viewing: Results Electronic laboratory result viewing was associated with higher quality of care Adjusted OR in baseline, cross-sectional study: 1.25 (95% CI 1.003 1.57) Adjusted OR in longitudinal study: 1.42 (95% CI 1.04 1.95) Longitudinal study adjusted for the physicians baseline quality of care Kern, Barrn, Blair, Salkowe, Chambers, Callahan, Kaushal. JGIM. 2008. 13

Slide 14

Policy Implications Push versus pull provision of clinical information Push 14

Slide 15

Policy Implications Push versus pull provision of clinical information Pull 15

Slide 16

4. Quality Metrics for Capturing the Effects of Interoperability Aim: To develop a set of electronically reportable quality metrics that capture the expected quality effects of interoperable EHRs Methods: Literature search Two rounds of quantitative rating of metrics 36-member national expert panel Kern, Dhopeshwarkar, Barrn, Wilcox, Pincus, Kaushal. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf, 2009. 16

Slide 17

4. Quality Metrics for Capturing the Effects of Interoperability Results: Of 1,064 existing metrics, we selected 18 top-scoring metrics We developed 14 novel metrics Focusing on the portion of quality that overlaps with utilization Lessons learned have implications for the current national discussion. Kern, Dhopeshwarkar, Barrn, Wilcox, Pincus, Kaushal. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf, 2009. 17

Slide 18

18 Conclusion Health IT has never been more important Very large national investment in interoperable EHRs Value hasnt been clearly demonstrated Best policies for implementation and support have not been determined. New York States experiences will be extremely useful in informing national directions.