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

The Impact of Community Health Information Exchange Usage on Time to Reutilization of Hospital Services

Chantel Sloan-Aagard, Jeffrey Glenn, Juan Nañez, Scott B. Crawford, J. C. Currey and Emily Hartmann
The Annals of Family Medicine January 2023, 21 (1) 19-26; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2903
Chantel Sloan-Aagard
1Paso del Norte Health Information Exchange, El Paso, Texas
2Department of Public Health, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: chantel.sloan@byu.edu
Jeffrey Glenn
2Department of Public Health, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah
DrPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Juan Nañez
1Paso del Norte Health Information Exchange, El Paso, Texas
RN, BSN
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Scott B. Crawford
3Department of Emergency Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center El Paso, El Paso, Texas
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. C. Currey
1Paso del Norte Health Information Exchange, El Paso, Texas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Emily Hartmann
1Paso del Norte Health Information Exchange, El Paso, Texas
MPP
  • 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.

    Flowchart of cohort and group selection.

    ED = emergency department; ICD-10 = International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision; PCP = primary care physician; PHIX = Paso del Norte Health Information Exchange.

    a These codes were excluded because they indicate normal pregnancy or elective termination of pregnancy. For example, patients with false labor were labeled as inpatient in the system. They were expected to return as inpatient for delivery, and thus were excluded.

    b Patients brought to the hospital through the prison system, border control, or other law enforcement agencies could not be reliably followed-up. Also, patients with military insurance are referred out from military hospitals for specific purposes, making them non-representative of the larger population.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Survival curves for key characteristics by case group (ED or inpatient visit).

    ED = emergency department; F = female; HIE = health information exchange; INP = inpatient; = male; NonHisp = Non-Hispanic; PHIX = Paso del Norte Health Information Exchange.

    Note: Censoring events are shown as crosses and CIs are included except for insurance categories, for ease of viewing. Time (x axis) is in days. Median number of days to second hospital visit for each group are shown in the upper right corner of the plot. If the number of persons re-entering the ED or INP never drops below 50%, the median cannot be calculated.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Proportion of ICD-10 code groups reported during hospital visits and physician use of HIE.

    ED = emergency department; HIE = health information exchange; ICD-10 = International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision.

    Note: Graphic represents the proportion of ICD-10 code groups reported during hospital visits, divided by the first inpatient visit and the second visit (ED or inpatient combined, cases only), and whether the HIE was accessed between the first and second visit by a primary care physician. A similar chart for all variables in the model is included in Supplemental Figure 3.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Cohort Characteristics by HIE Lookup at Post-Discharge Appointment (N = 8,216)

    CharacteristicHIE Lookup
    (n = 270)
    No HIE Lookup
    (n = 7,946)
    P
    Value
    Gender, No. (%).09
       Female151 (56)4,860 (61)
       Male119 (44)3,085 (39)
       NA   0 (0)   1 (0)
    Age, y, No. (%).60
       18-49115 (43)3,245 (41)
       ≥50155 (57)4,701 (59)
    Ethnicity, No. (%)<.001a
       Hispanic153 (57)5,611 (71)
       Non-Hispanic 54 (20)1,083 (14)
       NA 63 (23)1,252 (16)
    Insurance status, No. (%).57
       Medicaid33 (12)1,049 (13)
       Medicare63 (23)1,929 (24)
       Private75 (28)2,368 (30)
       Self-pay52 (19)1,236 (16)
       Uninsured24 (9)705 (9)
       NA23 (9)659 (8)
       Patient days, median, (IQR)108 (11-256)66 (11-169)<.001a
    • HIE = health information exchange; IQR = interquartile range; NA = not available.

    • ↵a Significance level 0.001

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Cohort Characteristics by Outcome Group (N = 8,216)

    CharacteristicCase Group 1:
    ED Visit
    (n = 3,809)
    Case Group 2:
    Inpatient Visit
    (n = 2,627)
    Controls: No
    Second Hospital
    Visit (n = 1,780)
    P Value
    Gender, No. (%)<.001b
       Female2,441 (64)1,661 (63) 909 (51)
       Male1,367 (36) 966 (37) 871 (49)
       NA  1 (0)  0 (0)  0 (0)
    Age, y, No. (%)<.001b
       18-491,411 (37)1,111 (42) 838 (47)
       ≥502,398 (63)1,516 (58) 942 (53)
       NA  0 (0)  0 (0)  0 (0)
    Ethnicity, No. (%).003a
       Hispanic2,498 (66)2,005 (76)1,261 (71)
       Non-Hispanic 465 (12) 370 (14) 302 (17)
       NA 846 (22) 252 (10) 217 (12)
    Insurance status, No. (%)<.001b
       Medicaid 509 (13) 368 (14) 205 (12)
       Medicare1,038 (27) 616 (23) 338 (19)
       Private1,095 (29) 831 (32) 517 (29)
       Self-pay 484 (13) 293 (11) 511 (29)
       Uninsured 323 (8) 302 (11) 104 (6)
       NA 360 (9) 217 (8) 105 (6)
    HIE accessed, No. (%)<.001b
       Yes 107 (3)  60 (2) 103 (6)
       No3,702 (97)2,567 (98)1,677 (94)
       Patient days, median (IQR)   43 (10-108)   26 (2-88)  290 (207-343)<.001b
    • ED = emergency department; HIE = health information exchange; IQR = interquartile range; NA = not available.

    • Note: Outcome groups were based on whether a patient visited an ED or was rehospitalized (inpatient visit) for the same or similar symptoms as indicated by the ICD-10 codes from first hospital discharge.

    • ↵a Significance level 0.01

    • ↵b Significance level 0.001

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Cox Proportional Hazards Results by Case Group

    CharacteristicCase Group 1: ED Visit (n = 3,809)Case Group 2: Inpatient Visit (n = 2,627)
    CoefficientHR (LCI, UCI)P ValueCoefficientHR (LCI, UCI)P Value
    Gender
       FemaleReferenceReferenceReferenceReferenceReferenceReference
       Male−0.260.77 (0.71, 0.84)<.001c−0.280.75 (0.69, 0.82)<.001c
    Age, y
       18-49ReferenceReferenceReferenceReferenceReferenceReference
       ≥500.171.18 (1.08, 1.3)<.001c0.131.13 (1.02, 1.26).02a
    Ethnicity
       HispanicReferenceReferenceReferenceReferenceReferenceReference
       Non-Hispanic−0.200.82 (0.73, 0.91)<.001c−0.170.84 (0.75, 0.95).004b
    Insurance type
       MedicaidReferenceReferenceReferenceReferenceReferenceReference
       Medicare−0.130.88 (0.76, 1.02).08−0.100.91 (0.77, 1.07).24
       Private−0.220.81 (0.71, 0.91)<.001c−0.170.84 (0.74, 0.96).01a
       Self-pay−0.710.49 (0.43, 0.57)<.001c−0.940.39 (0.33, 0.46)<.001c
       Uninsured0.001 (0.85, 1.17)1.000.041.04 (0.88, 1.23).65
    HIE accessed
       NoReferenceReferenceReferenceReferenceReferenceReference
       Yes−0.530.59 (0.46, 0.76)<.001c−0.590.56 (0.42, 0.74)<.001c
    • ED = emergency department; HIE = health information exchange; HR = hazard ratio; LCI = lower confidence interval; UCI = upper confidence interval.

    • Note: The dependent variables are being rehospitalized (inpatient visit) or having an ED visit after the post-inpatient primary care physician visit. Independent variables are whether the HIE was accessed, insurance category, age, ethnicity, and gender.

    • ↵a Significance level 0.05

    • ↵b Significance level 0.01

    • ↵c Significance level 0.001

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS IN PDF FILE BELOW

    • Sloan.pdf -

      PDF file

  • VISUAL ABSTRACT IN PNG FILE BELOW

    • 21.1_Sloan-Aargard_visualabstract_v06.png -

      PNG file

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Annals of Family Medicine: 21 (1)
Annals of Family Medicine: 21 (1)
Vol. 21, Issue 1
January/February 2023
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Front Matter (PDF)
  • Plain-Language Article Summaries
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.
The Impact of Community Health Information Exchange Usage on Time to Reutilization of Hospital Services
(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.
1 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
The Impact of Community Health Information Exchange Usage on Time to Reutilization of Hospital Services
Chantel Sloan-Aagard, Jeffrey Glenn, Juan Nañez, Scott B. Crawford, J. C. Currey, Emily Hartmann
The Annals of Family Medicine Jan 2023, 21 (1) 19-26; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2903

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
The Impact of Community Health Information Exchange Usage on Time to Reutilization of Hospital Services
Chantel Sloan-Aagard, Jeffrey Glenn, Juan Nañez, Scott B. Crawford, J. C. Currey, Emily Hartmann
The Annals of Family Medicine Jan 2023, 21 (1) 19-26; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2903
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSIONS
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Shared Decision Making Among Racially and/or Ethnically Diverse Populations in Primary Care: A Scoping Review of Barriers and Facilitators
  • Convenience or Continuity: When Are Patients Willing to Wait to See Their Own Doctor?
  • Feasibility and Acceptability of the “About Me” Care Card as a Tool for Engaging Older Adults in Conversations About Cognitive Impairment
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Person groups:
    • Community / population health
  • Methods:
    • Qualitative methods
  • Other research types:
    • Health services
  • Other topics:
    • Health informatics

Keywords

  • care transitions
  • community health information exchange
  • family medicine
  • hospital readmission

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