Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Typical Electronic Health Record Use in Primary Care Practices and the Quality of Diabetes Care

Jesse C. Crosson, Pamela A. Ohman-Strickland, Deborah J. Cohen, Elizabeth C. Clark and Benjamin F. Crabtree
The Annals of Family Medicine May 2012, 10 (3) 221-227; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1370
Jesse C. Crosson
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: jesse.crosson@umdnj.edu
Pamela A. Ohman-Strickland
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Deborah J. Cohen
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Elizabeth C. Clark
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Benjamin F. Crabtree
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    Primary care practice selection.

    EHR = electronic health record; ULTRA = Using Learning Teams for Reflective Adaptation.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Components of Guideline Adherence Scores

    Processes of Care ScoreaTreatment ScorebOutcomes Scorec
    HbA1c assessed within last 6 monthsHbA1c ≤8%, or >8% and on hypoglycemic agentHbA1c <7%
    Urine microalbumin assessed within last 12 months––
    Smoking status assessed within last 6 months––
    LDL-C assessed within last 12 monthsLDL-C ≤100 mg/dL, or >100 mg/dL and on lipid-lowering agentLDL-C ≤100 mg/dL
    BP recorded at each of 3 previous visitsBP ≤130/85 mm Hg (systolic and diastolic), or >130/85 mm Hg (systolic or diastolic) and on antihypertensiveBP ≤130/85 mm Hg (systolic and diastolic)
    • BP=blood pressure; HbA1c = glycated hemoglobin, percentage of total hemoglobin; LDL-C = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

    • ↵a Any 3 of 5 required.

    • ↵b All required.

    • ↵c Evaluated both as 2 of 3 required and as all required. The most recent recorded value was used.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Patient and Practice Characteristics

    Group Comparison
    CharacteristicAll Practices (n=42)EHR Practices (n=16)Non-EHR Practices (n=26)P Value
    Patients
    Baseline, No.763312451–
     Age, mean (SD), y60.2 (14.6)57.7 (14.9)61.9 (14.1).005a
     Women, %53.055.451.3.37a
    1-Year follow-up, No.792298494–
     Age, mean (SD), y60.1 (14.0)57.0 (13.1)62.0 (14.2)<.001a
     Women, %48.353.944.9.06a
    2-Year follow-up, No.798306492–
     Age, mean (SD), y60.5 (14.5)59.2 (14.0)61.3 (14.8).23a
     Women, %51.652.950.8.69a
    Practices
    Number of clinicians, mean (SD)5.0 (4.2)5.8 (5.8)4.4 (2.9).48b
    Number of staff, mean (SD)14.3 (10.4)12.9 (8.8)15.2 (11.4).31b
    Staff–clinician ratio (SD)3.1 (1.8)2.7 (1.6)3.4 (1.8).26b
    Practice type, % (No.).19c
     Solo21 (9)6 (1)31 (8)
     Group79 (33)94 (15)69 (18)
    Physician owned, % (No.)76 (32)63 (10)85 (22).14c
    Intervention, % (No.)47 (20)50 (8)46 (12)1.00c
    • EHR=Electronic health record.

    • ↵a Hierarchical linear model, Wald test statistic.

    • ↵b Analysis of variance, degrees of freedom = 1, 31.

    • ↵c Fisher exact test.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Percentages of Patients Whose Care Met Quality Standards During the 3-Year Observation Period

    EHR Practices (n=16)Non-EHR Practices (n=26)EHR vs Non-EHR PracticesAll Practices (N=42)
    Quality Measure and Time Point% of Patients, Mean (SD)F2,45 (P Value)% of Patients, Mean (SD)F2,75 (P Value)F1,2222 (P Value)% of Patients, Mean (SD)F2,123 (P Value)
    Processes of care (3 of 5 criteria met)
     Baseline45.1 (16.8)0.44 (.65)55.5 (24.9)0.40 (.67)0.02 (.98)51.5 (22.5)0.86 (.43)
     1-Year follow-up45.0 (27.7)57.2 (22.3)52.5 (24.9)
     2-Year follow-up51.1 (19.8)60.7 (20.9)57.0 (20.8)
    Treatment (all criteria met)
     Baseline38.2 (14.3)2.81 (.07)47.2 (24.9)1.28 (.28)0.59 (.55)43.8 (16.5)3.26 (.04)
     1-Year follow-up42.2 (18.4)47.3 (20.1)45.4 (19.4)
     2-Year follow-up48.6 (13.5)53.5 (19.8)51.7 (17.6)
    Outcomes (2 of 3 targets met)
     Baseline44.8 (15.3)0.71 (.50)52.5 (15.0)4.32 (.02)0.30 (.74)49.6 (15.4)4.68 (.01)
     1-Year follow-up44.8 (15.3)52.8 (16.3)49.8 (16.2)
     2-Year follow-up49.9 (16.0)61.9 (15.2)57.4 (16.4)
    Outcomes (all targets met)
     Baseline10.3 (6.4)2.21 (.12)15.1 (9.7)3.53 (.03)0.08 (.93)13.3 (8.8)9.49 (.003)
     1-Year follow-up11.1 (7.8)15.3 (11.2)13.7 (10.1)
     2-Year follow-up15.9 (9.4)21.5 (12.7)19.4 (11.8)
    • EHR=electronic health record.

    • Notes: F statistics and P values were calculated using hierarchical models with pseudo-likelihood estimation to determine whether changes in rates were significant for either EHR or non-EHR practices over time or whether rates of changes differed between the 2 groups over time. Results are unadjusted for covariates.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    EHR Use and the Quality of Diabetes Care at the 2-Year Follow-up

    Quality MeasureAdjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI)P Value
    Processes of care1.60 (0.93–2.74).09
    Treatment1.42 (0.81–2.49).22
    Outcomes (2 of 3 targets met)1.54 (1.06–2.25).02
    Outcomes (all targets met)1.67 (1.12–2.51).01
    • EHR=electronic health record.

    • Comparison is for non-EHR practices vs EHR practices.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • The Article in Brief

    Jesse C. Crosson , and colleagues

    Background It is widely expected that use of electronic health records (EHRs) will lead to improvements in health care safety, quality, and efficiency. This study analyzes diabetes care outcomes in practices that use an EHR compared with those using paper records.

    What This Study Found Over a 3-year period, practices using an EHR did not make more rapid quality improvements than practices using paper records and, after 2 years, had poorer diabetes care quality.

    Implications

    • Having an EHR as opposed to a paper-based record keeping system does not guarantee better care.
    • Adopting an EHR requires corresponding changes in work processes and ways of thinking about care that lead to improvements in chronic illness management.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 10 (3)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 10 (3)
Vol. 10, Issue 3
May/June 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • In Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Typical Electronic Health Record Use in Primary Care Practices and the Quality of Diabetes Care
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
13 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Typical Electronic Health Record Use in Primary Care Practices and the Quality of Diabetes Care
Jesse C. Crosson, Pamela A. Ohman-Strickland, Deborah J. Cohen, Elizabeth C. Clark, Benjamin F. Crabtree
The Annals of Family Medicine May 2012, 10 (3) 221-227; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1370

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Typical Electronic Health Record Use in Primary Care Practices and the Quality of Diabetes Care
Jesse C. Crosson, Pamela A. Ohman-Strickland, Deborah J. Cohen, Elizabeth C. Clark, Benjamin F. Crabtree
The Annals of Family Medicine May 2012, 10 (3) 221-227; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1370
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Designing health information technology tools for behavioural health clinicians integrated within US-based primary care teams
  • Implementation of data management and effect on chronic disease coding in a primary care organisation: A parallel cohort observational study
  • Retroaction de la Sentinelle: une voie vers une utilisation significative des DME
  • Sentinel feedback: path to meaningful use of EMRs
  • In This Issue: From Communities of Solution to Joy
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Artificial Intelligence Tools for Preconception Cardiomyopathy Screening Among Women of Reproductive Age
  • Family Physicians in Focused Practice in Ontario, Canada: A Population-Level Study of Trends From 1993/1994 Through 2021/2022
  • Seven Opportunities for Artificial Intelligence in Primary Care Electronic Visits: Qualitative Study of Staff and Patient Views
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Domains of illness & health:
    • Chronic illness
  • Methods:
    • Quantitative methods
  • Other research types:
    • Health policy
  • Other topics:
    • Health informatics
    • Patient-centered medical home

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine