Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Research

The Use of Electronic Health Records in the Exam Room and Patient Satisfaction: A Systematic Review

Jihad S. Irani, Jennifer L. Middleton, Ruta Marfatia, Evelyn T. Omana and Frank D'Amico
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine September 2009, 22 (5) 553-562; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2009.05.080259
Jihad S. Irani
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jennifer L. Middleton
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ruta Marfatia
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Evelyn T. Omana
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Frank D'Amico
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 1.

    Study inclusion process. EHR, electronic health record.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Description of Studies

    AuthorSettingEHR UsedStudy DesignPatients DescriptionPhysicians Description
    Gadd (2000)Single center, university based, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation department, Pittsburgh, PAEpicare, commercialPre/post implementation for physicians’ perceptions; only postimplementation for patients Patients surveyed 6 months after implementation of EHRAge 19 to 83 years (median, 45 years); 37% “unsophisticated” with computer use 165 surveys analyzed5 faculty (2 women, 3 men); average age, 37 years
    Gadd (2001)Single center, university based, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, internal medicine, renal, pulmonary, geriatrics, ID, Pittsburgh, PAEpicare, commercialPhysicians’ perception of patient satisfaction before and 6 months after EHR implementationNo patients characteristics described 124 encounters analyzed75 physicians (97%) before EHR implementation and 95 faculty (70%) after EHR implementation; average age, 40 years
    Garrison (2002)Single center, academic family medicine clinic, MidwestIn-house developedPre (2 years before EHR)/postPatients with hypertension, dyslipidemia Mean age, 64 years 56.5% women Analyzed 200 before and 304 after EHR implementation33 (9 faculty, 24 residents) 2 nurse practitioners 3 years’ experience with EHR
    Hsu (2005)Single center, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, OREpic systemsPre (2 months prior)/post (1 and 7 months after)Mean age, 55 years 64% women 32% with college degree 107 before EHR implementation; 81 and 125 after implementation8 (out of 17 primary care physicians in internal medicine and family practice) Age not described
    Johnson (2005)Single center, Hospital-based pediatric teaching clinicClictate, non commercial, developed by authorPre (historical)/post (1 year after EHR) surveyPediatric population (<18 months) for well child exams Parents surveyed 149 encounters before EHR implementation; 221 encounters after implementationBefore implementation of EHR: 25% male, 44% PGY1 After implementation: 38% male, 21% PGY1 (both significantly different)
    Joos (2006)Single center Adult ambulatory primary care and urgent care clinic in an academic hospital; TNUnknownCross-sectional Physicians’ perception of patient satisfactionNot described46 (out of 70 physicians) 37% younger than 30 years of age 54% male Median of 5 years in practice
    Rouf (2006)VA system Primary care clinic NYVA system, non commercialCross-sectionalGroup faculty: mean age, 72 years; 100% male Group residents: mean age, 69.5 years; 93.5% male 6 patients/physician (internist) 155 analyzedFaculty: 11 (out of 18); mean age, 42 years; 36% male; 6 years in practice Residents: 12 (out of 32); mean age, 30 years; 68% male; 2.2 years in practice
    • EHR, electronic health record; ID, infectious disease; PGY1, postgraduate year 1; VA, Veterans Affairs.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Methodological Evaluation of Studies

    StudyFundingPopulationIndependent VariableDependent VariableOther Methodological Issues
    Gadd (2000)None specifiedSampling method: non random, sequential Sample size: not justified Response rate: 82%EHR was in the exam room for more than 6 months prior to data collection Unsure how many physicians used it or how they didSurvey for patient satisfaction attitudes, developed and validated Blinding of data collector: N/A Blinding of analyst: not specifiedPossible variable experience with EHR usage inside the room Potential confounders considered in analysis: patient age, gender, self-rated computer sophistication or computer use
    Gadd (2001)None specifiedSampling method: nonrandom Sample size: not justified Response rate: 77% in pre- and in post-Time (preimplementation and postimplementation of EHR) Unsure how many physicians used EHR or how they didPhysicians’ perception; instrument validated Blinding of data collector: N/A Blinding of analyst: not specifiedNo confounders were considered in the analysis Postintervention data collection over 18 months period
    Garrison (2002)HRSA grantSampling method: nonrandom for post-, random for pre- Sample size justified Clear eligibility criteria Comparison to a historical sample Response rate 64% in post-Time (pre/post) Describes if physicians used EHR inside roomQuestionnaire designed for this study, piloted, but no mention of validation Blinding of data collector or data analyst: not mentionedAddressed respondent bias Analyzed if associations with patients’ perception of physicians’ computer skills and patients’ personal use of computer No adjustments for confounders mentioned
    Hsu (2005)Garfield memorial fundSampling method: nonrandom; PCP volunteers and their patients; convenience Sample size: not justified Eligibility criteria defined Patients’ response rate: 80%Physicians familiar with the system prior to the intervention Training happened between data collection times in post (100% physicians attended)Self-administered questionnaire, pre-tested; based on “Medical Outcomes Study” No mention of blinding in data collection or analysisConfounders considered in analysis: age, gender, self-reported health status, race/ethnicity, annual household income, education, previously seen the PCP
    Johnson (2005)Multiple*Sampling method: nonrandom in post- Eligibility defined Control: random selection, historical Sample size justified Response rate 92% (post)Use of EHR assessed after the encounter by physiciansQuestionnaire based on a tool developed by Wissow el al to assess satisfaction No mention of blinding of data collector or analystConfounders considered in analysis: Physician sex and year of training, possible within physician correlations
    Joos (2006)No fundingSampling method: nonrandom, convenient Sample size not justified Response rate 66% (physicians)EHR already in place before this survey done No direct assessment of use of EHR, but general questions (not after each encounter)Survey built after qualitative section, tested for face validity No blinding for data collection or analysisConfounders considered in the analysis: gender, computer skill, message basket use and years of practice (but not for the outcome of interest)
    Rouf (2006)HRSAEligibility specified Sampling method: nonrandom Sample size not justified Response rate 61% of attending and 38% of residentsEHR already in placeQuestionnaires from Medical Outcomes Study–reviewed for face validity–and piloted No blindingConfounders considered in the analysis: done but not specified which ones
    • * Funding from Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration-Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

    • EHR, electronic health record; HRSA, Health Resources and Services Administration; PCP, primary care physician.

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Summary of Studies’ Findings

    AuthorOutcomeResultsAuthors’ ConclusionOur Interpretation
    Gadd (2000)1 to 5 Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree)General Satisfaction Scale 4.59 (±0.47); Physician Computer Use Scale 4.00 (±0.68)*Patients did not indicate a sense of loss of rapport with their physiciansNeutral
    Gadd (2001)1 to 5 Likert scale (highly detrimental to highly beneficial)Before implementation: mean score, 3.20 (±0.60) After implementation: mean score, 2.91(±0.85) P = .019Physicians perceive EHR use had a detrimental impact on patient's satisfaction with quality of care and physician autonomyNegative
    Garrison (2002)Percentage of “excellent or very good” to “How would you rate the overall care you received?”Before implementation: 81% After implementation: 83.5% P= NSNo difference in patient satisfaction after the introduction of point-of-care computers at the clinicNeutral
    Hsu (2005)Percentage of reporting “excellent satisfaction”2 months before implementation: OR, 1 (reference) 1 month after implementation: OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.83–3.24 7 months after implementation: OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.01–2.22The examination room computers seemed to have positive effects on physician-patient interactionsPositive
    Johnson (2005)Percentage who report “strongly agree” to satisfaction with attention given by physician and medical care receivedAttention After implementation: OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.59, before implementation being the reference Medical care received After implementation: OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 0.97 to 3.25, before implementation being the referenceThe adoption of computer based documentation in a primary care pediatric clinic did not significantly affect parent satisfaction with the encounterNeutral
    Joos (2006)Percentage of response to “the new system has increased patient satisfaction”31% agree 62% neutral 7% disagreePhysicians did not know whether or not the use of EHR impacted patient satisfactionNeutral
    Rouf (2007)Percentage that “strongly agree” they were satisfied with overall relationship with physicianPatients seeing residents: 50% Patients seeing faculty: 71%; P = .02Patients seeing residents were more likely to report negative effect on the patient-physician interaction. However, only 8% of all patients reported that the computer interfered with their relationship with their doctor.Neutral
    • * General Satisfaction Scale: 10 overall visit and patient satisfaction items; Physician Computer Use Scale: 5 computer-related satisfaction items.

    • EHR, electronic health record; OR, odds ratio.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine: 22 (5)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 22, Issue 5
September-October 2009
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
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 American Board 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 Use of Electronic Health Records in the Exam Room and Patient Satisfaction: A Systematic Review
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board 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.
6 + 6 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
The Use of Electronic Health Records in the Exam Room and Patient Satisfaction: A Systematic Review
Jihad S. Irani, Jennifer L. Middleton, Ruta Marfatia, Evelyn T. Omana, Frank D'Amico
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Sep 2009, 22 (5) 553-562; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2009.05.080259

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
The Use of Electronic Health Records in the Exam Room and Patient Satisfaction: A Systematic Review
Jihad S. Irani, Jennifer L. Middleton, Ruta Marfatia, Evelyn T. Omana, Frank D'Amico
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Sep 2009, 22 (5) 553-562; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2009.05.080259
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Guest Family Physician Commentaries
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Does digital health technology improve physicians job satisfaction and work-life balance? A cross-sectional national survey and regression analysis using an instrumental variable
  • Les dossiers medicaux electroniques ameliorent-ils la qualite des soins?: Non
  • Do electronic medical records improve quality of care?: No
  • Accelerated Adoption of Advanced Health Information Technology in Beacon Community Health Centers
  • Patient Satisfaction: Implications and Predictors of Success
  • Guest Family Physician Commentaries
  • On Postpartum Depression, Hormonal Problems, and Practice Management for Medical Home Implementation
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Associations Between Modifiable Preconception Care Indicators and Pregnancy Outcomes
  • Perceptions and Preferences for Defining Biosimilar Products in Prescription Drug Promotion
  • Evaluating Pragmatism of Lung Cancer Screening Randomized Trials with the PRECIS-2 Tool
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire