4.7 Article

Electronic Medical Records and Physician Productivity: Evidence from Panel Data Analysis

期刊

MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
卷 60, 期 10, 页码 2543-2562

出版社

INFORMS
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.1934

关键词

Arellano-Bond GMM estimation; dynamic panel model; electronic medical records; EMR; EMR productivity; health informatics; IT productivity; physician learning; physician productivity; task-technology fit; work relative value units

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper studies the impact of an electronic medical record (EMR) system on the productivity of physicians. Physicians influence a vast majority of treatment decisions and are central to the care delivery process; thus, it is important to understand how EMRs may impact the nature of their work. Our research builds on prior literature on physician productivity, IT productivity, and task-technology fit theory. We use a unique panel data set comprising 87 physicians specializing in internal medicine, pediatrics, and family practice, located in 12 primary care clinics of an academic healthcare system in the western United States. We employ the Arellano-Bond system generalized method of moments estimation technique on our data set, which contains 3,186 physician-month productivity observations collected over 39 months. We find that productivity drops sharply immediately after technology implementation and recovers partly over the next few months. The ultimate, longer-term impact depends on physician specialty. The net impact of the EMR system is more benign on internal medicine physicians than on pediatricians and family practitioners. We postulate that the fit provided by an EMR system to the task requirements of physicians of various specialties may be key to disentangling the productivity dynamics. Our research finds that on one hand, present-day EMR systems do not produce the kind of productivity gain that could lead to substantial savings in healthcare; at the same time, EMRs do not cause a major productivity loss on a sustained basis, as many physicians fear.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据