Preliminary Data 2007 National Physician Survey - Productivity

Private and ConfidentialPrepared by Dr. Alan Brookstone & Greig Pothan

October, 2008

Background Information

Analysis of 2007 National Physician Survey data

Supported by a funding grant from NRC-IRAP & MITACS (Sauder School of Business)

Objective: To measure the value of eHealth in the context

of the Electronic Medical Record that exists in the Specialist and GP office

System Productivity

Is there a relationship between use of EMRs and Wait Times?

Using NPS (National Physician Survey) Data 2007 23,292 physicians surveyed (Specialist and GP)

16,179 – Use Paper Records 3,916 – Combination of EMR plus Paper 3,197 – Electronic Medical Records

Findings: EMR based practices appear to have shorter wait times for Urgent referrals

4

Physician Productivity (GP & Specialist)

EMR Impact on Wait Times for Urgent Referrals

GP’s and Specialistsmain patient care setting of •Private office/ clinic (excluding free standing walk-in clinics),•Community clinic/ Community health centre, or •Free-standing walk-in clinic

N=23,292 GPs and SpecialistsPaper 1.895Combination 2.228Electronic 1.370

EMR 27.7% reduction vs. Paper

CFPC/CMA/ RCPSC National Physician Survey Database, 2004 or 2007 "Protected by Copyright”

System Capacity

Is there a relationship between use of EMRs and ability to accept new patients in primary care?

In 2008, there were up to 5 million Canadians who were unable to find a family doctor

Findings: EMR based GP practices appear to have greater capacity to accept new patients

System Capacity

GPs with partially closed practices ability to accept new patients (Mean estimated number of new patients in the past 12 months)

GP’s onlymain patient care setting of •Private office/ clinic (excluding free standing walk-in clinics),•Community clinic/ Community health centre, or •Free-standing walk-in clinic

N=15,316 GPsPaper – 63.267Combination – 60.810Electronic – 89.401

EMR 29% increase over paper

CFPC/CMA/ RCPSC National Physician Survey Database, 2004 or 2007 "Protected by Copyright”

System Throughput ~ Efficiency

Is there a relationship between GP practices that use EMR alone and those that use EMR plus paper (mixed) in terms of system efficiency/throughput?

NPS Survey 2007 (FP/GP) Use paper: 63.4% Used mixed: 19.4% Only EMR: 12.3% Not Reported: 4.9% N=4,724 physicians

Findings: The mixed environment appears worse than paper records and worse than EMR

System Throughput – GP

GPs in a mixed environment appear to spend longer with their patients per visit than either paper or electronic

Mixed: 1% less throughput Paper: NeutralEMR: 11% more throughput

Difference: +/- 12%N=4,724 GPsPaper 17.78Combination 17.89Electronic 15.88

CFPC/CMA/ RCPSC National Physician Survey Database, 2004 or 2007 "Protected by Copyright”