Health Care Management Science

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 307–313 | Cite as

The agreement and internal consistency of national hospital EMR measures

  • Abby Swanson Kazley
  • Mark L. Diana
  • Nir Menachemi


There has been national focus on increasing the use of electronic medical records (EMR) in hospitals because of their potential to improve care. Previous research has examined EMR use and reported an inconsistent relationship between EMR use and performance. This study examines the agreement between and the internal consistency of two national datasets that measure hospital EMR use. Data include the Health Information Management Systems Society (HIMSS) and the American Hospital Association (AHA). This analysis is essential to determine the strength and challenges of the nationally available EMR measures that are used in research, which informs national policy and practice. The results show very poor agreement between the two national datasets on hospital EMR use. The datasets demonstrate some internal consistency. In the absence of a gold standard measure of EMR use, researchers must be aware of the limitations of national EMR measures, and future research may validate the datasets.


Electronic health records (EHRs) Health information technology (HIT) Hospital EHR use EHR data validity 


  1. 1.
    Jha A, DesRoches C, Kralovec Pl, Joshi M (2010) A progress report on electronic health records in U.S. Hospitals. Health Aff 29(10):1951–1957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jha AK, DesRoches CM, Campbell EG, Donelan K, Rao SR, Ferris TG, Blumenthal D (2009) Use of electronic health records in U.S. hospitals. N Engl J Med 360:1628–1638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Congressional Budget Office (2008) Evidence on the costs and benefits of health informationtechnology. Author, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hillestad R, Bigelow J, Bower A, Girosi F, Meili R, Scoville R, Taylor R (2005) Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs. Health Aff 24:1103–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brailer DG (2005) Interoperability: the key to the future health care system interoperability will bind together a wide network of real-time, life-critical data that not only transform but become health care. Health Affairs WebExclusive W5-19-W5-21Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bates D (2002) The quality case for information technology in health care. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2(7)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aspen P, Corrigan JM, Wolcott J, Erickson SM (eds) (2004) Patient safety: Achieving a new standard for care (Quality Chasm series.) Washington. National Academies Press, D.CGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu SY, Maglione M, Mojica W, Roth E, Shekelle PG (2006) Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med 144:742–752Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deckelbaum DL, Feinstein AJ, Schulman CI, Augenstein JS, Murtha MF, Livingstone AS, McKenney MG (2009) Electronic medical records and mortality in trauma patients. J Trauma 67(3):634–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Poissant L, Pereira J, Tamblyn R, Kawasumi Y (2005) The impact of electronic healthrecords on time efficiency of physicians and nurses: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 12:505–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vishwanath A, Singh SR, Winkelstein P (2010) The impact of electronic medical records systems on outpatient workflows: a longitudinal evaluation of its workflow effects. Int J Med Inform 79(11):778–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Orrico KB (2008) Sources and types of discrepancies between electronic medical records and actual outpatient medication use. J Manage Care Pharm 14(7):626–631Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kazley AS, Ozcan YA (2008) Does hospital electronic medical record use increase health care quality? An examination of three clinical conditions. Med Care Res Rev 65(4):496–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCullough JS, Casey M, Moscovice I, Prasad S (2010) The effect of health information technology on quality in U.S. hospitals. Health Aff 29(4):647–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blavin FE, Buntin MJ, Friedman CP (2010) Alternative measures of electronic health record adoption among hospitals. Am J Managed Care 16:e293–e301Google Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Rosner B (2006) Fundamentals of biostatistics. Thomson Higher Education, Belmont, CAGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    American Hospital Association (2010) Data collection methodology and history. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from
  19. 19.
    Blumenthal D, Tavenner M (2010) The “meaningful use” regulation for electronic health records. N Engl J Med 363:501–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abby Swanson Kazley
    • 1
  • Mark L. Diana
    • 2
  • Nir Menachemi
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Health ProfessionsMedical University of South CarolinaCharlestonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Health Systems ManagementTulane UniversityNew OrleansUSA
  3. 3.Health Care Organization and Policy, UAB School of Public HealthBirminghamUSA

Personalised recommendations